A JURY has been sworn at Swansea Crown Court in the trial of a man accused of causing the death of a baby in a Tenby car park, as the defence immediately applied for the case to be stopped on the basis that there is no case to answer.

The defendant, Flaviu Naghi, 34, formerly of Leigh and now of Luton, faces a two-count indictment following an incident on Thursday, January 2, 2025, at a multi-storey car park on Upper Park Road, Tenby.

Count one alleges causing death by dangerous driving.
Count two alleges causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drugs.

The charges relate to the death of six-month-old Sophia Kelemen.

It is alleged that at the time of the incident, Naghi had in his body a specified controlled drug — benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine — at a concentration of 236 micrograms per litre of blood, exceeding the legal limit of 50 micrograms.

Naghi has pleaded not guilty to both counts.

Jury sworn in

On Tuesday (Jan 6), jurors were sworn and addressed by Her Honour Judge Catherine Richards, who explained their responsibilities and warned them not to carry out any private research or discuss the case outside the jury room.

They were told that verdicts must be based solely on evidence heard in court and that any breach of those rules could amount to a criminal offence.

After the jury was sent out, the court heard legal submissions in their absence.

Defence: no case to answer

Defence counsel John Hipkin KC made a formal submission of no case to answer, arguing that there is insufficient evidence that Naghi was “driving” the vehicle within the meaning of the law.

The court was told that the defence position is that Naghi’s only interaction with the vehicle was turning the ignition key after being handed the keys in order to warm the car.

It was submitted that:

Naghi had no intention of moving the vehicle.
He did not release the handbrake.
Physical testing and expert analysis of CCTV do not support any suggestion that he did.
He was outside the vehicle when it began to move.
He was unable to reach the foot brake or handbrake.

Defence counsel told the court that the incident unfolded “in the blink of an eye”, and that Naghi tried unsuccessfully to stop the vehicle but was physically unable to do so.

It was argued that starting an engine cannot, of itself, amount to driving, and that a failure to gain control of a moving vehicle cannot be treated as driving in law.

Reference was made to a written ruling given by the judge the previous day, in which she stated that directions could not be given to a jury on the basis that a person who fails to gain control of a vehicle can therefore be said to be driving it.

Prosecution: actions form a “continuum”

Prosecuting counsel Tom Crowther KC responded that Naghi’s actions must be considered as a whole, forming a continuous course of conduct.

The Crown submitted that:

Naghi used a driver’s control — namely the ignition.
The vehicle moved forward under engine power as a direct result of his actions.
His conduct should be viewed from the moment he turned the key to the moment of collision.

While accepting that starting the engine alone would not necessarily amount to driving, the prosecution argued that in the circumstances of this case the actions were indivisible and amounted to driving.

Judge reserves ruling

Judge Richards said she would not rule on the submission that afternoon, describing it as a significant issue of law requiring careful consideration.

She noted that depending on her decision, the prosecution may need time to consider its position.

The jury was dismissed until Thursday, when the judge said she would deliver her ruling.

The trial remains ongoing.

(Cover image: PA)