Closing submissions in trial for youth accused of killing Millicent’s Ned and Nan Walker and Sue Skeer in Mount Gambier crash

Is a teenage driver responsible for the deaths of three people from one Mount Gambier family? It all comes down to a few seconds of chaos, a court has heard.

Whether or not a teenage driver is criminally responsible for the deaths of three Mount Gambier identities comes down to just 4.7 seconds, a court has heard.

On Thursday, the Youth Court heard closing submissions in the trial of the teenager accused of killing Ned and Nan Walker, and their daughter Sue Skeer, by dangerous driving.

As the Walker family watched by video link from Mount Gambier, prosecutor Aimee Winra urged the court to find the teenager’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.

She said tyre marks, medical evidence and witness testimony all pointed to the teen having drifted onto the wrong side of the road due to “gross inattention”.

Any other conclusion, she said, would require “suspending disbelief in the laws of physics”.

“In the 4.7 seconds before the collision, there was no evidence of swerving or braking... only in the 0.7 seconds prior to the crash was there harsh braking,” she said.

“That’s all consistent with someone not paying attention to the roadway.

“We all make minor driving mistakes on the road – this driving went beyond what could be described as driving without due care.”

Sue Skeer, 55 and her parents Ned Walker, 80 and Nan Walker 77. Picture: Supplied by the family

The boy, 17, whose identity is suppressed by law, pleaded not guilty to three counts of causing death and four counts of causing harm by dangerous driving.

Prosecutors allege he was on L-plates when he caused a November 2020 head-on crash, near Mount Gambier, which killed Ned Walker, 80, Nan Walker, 77, and Sue Skeer, 55.

His trial has heard allegations the boy was thinking about school, not the road, just before the crash and had “zoned out”.

It also heard he stopped taking his ADHD medication, without his doctor’s knowledge, months before the crash.

His counsel, however, claim the boy had corrected his drift onto the wrong side of the road and was “pretty much fully” in his lane when the crash occurred.

A sign erected by the crash site. Picture: Supplied

On Thursday, Bill Boucaut QC, for the teenager, said his client did not deny there had been “a devastating, tragic loss of lives”, nor that he had driven without due care.

“That is the drifting of his vehicle to the incorrect side of the road... if the other driver had held her line, there may not have been a collision,” he said.

“Regrettably, the other driver swerved and the collision occurred.”

He said the evidence in the case did not meet the legal definition of “dangerous driving”, meaning his client should be acquitted.

“Not all bad driving is dangerous driving, but all bad driving has the potential to cause accidents,” he said.

“That an accident occurred doesn’t mean it’s dangerous driving.”

Judge Penny Eldridge remanded the teenager on continuing bail, and will hand down her verdict next month.