The Jury at Harrow Crown Court this afternoon returned a verdict of Guilty on both counts against Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala. He was charged with Dangerous Driving and ABH (Actual Bodily Harm) in a case where the complainant was a female fellow Brent Labour councillor. (Councillor X)
The case was adjourned until February 27th for sentencing. The judge will consider a request by Cllr X to make a personal statement.
In an exchange with the Crown and Defence lawyers before the adjournment, referring to the ABH charge and the injuries, the Judge said, 'this is not so much about a fall, but a falling out over a failed relationship'.
The Jury had heard that the couple were in a relationship for two years which had been kept secret from their family, friends and colleagues, partly due to their different cultural backgrounds.
Texts between the two were submitted as evidence. The Defence claimed they showed that on the afternoon of the incident Cllr X was angry with Cllr Kalwala because he had cancelled meeting up with her pleading family commitments and he 'was always cancelling her'. He had texted, 'Hi X, don;lt be angry. Can't come and have to go to relations. Please don't argue with me.'
The Defence claimed that X's texts showed her increasingly angry claiming that all his promises were 'bullshit' . Kalwala responded, 'Sorry, what can I do? I have to keep my family happy too'. Cllr X texted back, 'Sorry isn't good enough'.
The Defence suggested the text evidence showed who the aggressor was: 'He's trying to calm her down - she's getting crosser and crosser'. The Defence said, 'We are asked to believe that 20 minutes latter he has turned into the aggressor' and went on 'she'd gone storming round to confront him, embarrass him in front of his parents. She'd gone round for a spat.'
The two accounts then become increasingly complex and divergent. One had Kalwala driving away from home so that the argument would not be seen by family, with Cllr X getting into his car and only getting out in Chaplin Road.
Both involve Cllr X climbing on to the bonnet of the car to prevent Kalwala driving away and Kalwala then driving with her on the bonnet. One version at his home and the other after th car stopped in Chaplin Road. The Crown claimed that Kalwala wouldn't let X into the car so she moved round the front and then tried to get out of the way as he drove. If Cllr X was on the bonnet from Kalwala's home street the distance was about three-quarters of a mile to where she fell from the bonnet. If she had got on to the bonnet in Chaplin Road, where she fell further along the road, the distance was much shorter. There were also different accounts from both parties and witnesses, about how fast the car was driven and how abruptly it was braked and whether the driver was tryng to shake her off the bonnet. The Defence suggested if a car had been driving at spped along several local road's with a woman clinging to the bonnet someone would have rung 999.
The Defence noted that throughout a three quarter drive, at speed, going over speed-bumps, hanging on to the bonnet by gripping the windscreen wipers, no damage had been done to the car and Cllr X 'suffered not even a broken finger nail and her sunglasses and phone were intact'.
The Crown suggested to the Jury that Kalwala's account was 'possibly rehearsed' and asked them to consider whether it was the truth or a 'carefully crafted account'. He had not made a statement in June and his written statement was made on December 1st, just 8 weeks ago. This meant there was nothing to compare that account with from the time of the incident. Kalwala claimed that he had remained silent on his solicitor's advice.
There were discrepancies over the fall from the car bonnet and whether X was able to get up afterwards, apparently without injury or whether as a witness claimed she was lying on the ground, holding her neck, apparently in pain.
After X fell from the bonnet Kalwala drove off and the Crown claimed that Kalwala's accoun in court of driving back t the scene and what took place there, conflicted with his writtten statement: whether the ambulance was there when he returned or had driven off, whether the area was cordoned off, whether police were present, whether a resident assured him that X has said she was fine but didn't want her family informed, 'all suggested that the story was made up'.
There was no fundamental dispute over X's injuries which were grazes to her right leg and right foot.
The Jury heard that X had texted Kalwala from hospital claiming he didn't care about her, 'You could have killed me'. The Crown claimed that his response, saying he was sorry, implied that he accepted her account of what happened and asked why, given his good character and success in politics and banking he had not given a full acount to the police at the time.
The Jury heard that X had told police that afternoon that she had had a quarrel with her boyfriend, has got on the bonnet of his car and had fallen off. She didn't want to take any further action.
However, after talking with friends, including Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent council, she had been persuaded to make a full statement to the police as a complainant.
Directing the Jury the Judge said that they could still reach a verdict of Dangerous Driving even if they did not accept the long journey version of the drive. He reminded them that Kalwala had no previous convictions, a clean licence and they had heard from witnesses of his good character.
Kalwala had given a full acount of the his version of the incident and the background to the relationship but hadn't given this account when charged. He had a right to remain silent on the advice of his solicitor and this was an important consideration. However he did have a choice about whether he accepted this advice. It was a question of whether he genuinely relied on this advice or did so because he had no answers to give to the charges.
All in all a very sad case.
The case was adjourned until February 27th for sentencing. The judge will consider a request by Cllr X to make a personal statement.
In an exchange with the Crown and Defence lawyers before the adjournment, referring to the ABH charge and the injuries, the Judge said, 'this is not so much about a fall, but a falling out over a failed relationship'.
The Jury had heard that the couple were in a relationship for two years which had been kept secret from their family, friends and colleagues, partly due to their different cultural backgrounds.
Texts between the two were submitted as evidence. The Defence claimed they showed that on the afternoon of the incident Cllr X was angry with Cllr Kalwala because he had cancelled meeting up with her pleading family commitments and he 'was always cancelling her'. He had texted, 'Hi X, don;lt be angry. Can't come and have to go to relations. Please don't argue with me.'
The Defence claimed that X's texts showed her increasingly angry claiming that all his promises were 'bullshit' . Kalwala responded, 'Sorry, what can I do? I have to keep my family happy too'. Cllr X texted back, 'Sorry isn't good enough'.
The Defence suggested the text evidence showed who the aggressor was: 'He's trying to calm her down - she's getting crosser and crosser'. The Defence said, 'We are asked to believe that 20 minutes latter he has turned into the aggressor' and went on 'she'd gone storming round to confront him, embarrass him in front of his parents. She'd gone round for a spat.'
The two accounts then become increasingly complex and divergent. One had Kalwala driving away from home so that the argument would not be seen by family, with Cllr X getting into his car and only getting out in Chaplin Road.
Both involve Cllr X climbing on to the bonnet of the car to prevent Kalwala driving away and Kalwala then driving with her on the bonnet. One version at his home and the other after th car stopped in Chaplin Road. The Crown claimed that Kalwala wouldn't let X into the car so she moved round the front and then tried to get out of the way as he drove. If Cllr X was on the bonnet from Kalwala's home street the distance was about three-quarters of a mile to where she fell from the bonnet. If she had got on to the bonnet in Chaplin Road, where she fell further along the road, the distance was much shorter. There were also different accounts from both parties and witnesses, about how fast the car was driven and how abruptly it was braked and whether the driver was tryng to shake her off the bonnet. The Defence suggested if a car had been driving at spped along several local road's with a woman clinging to the bonnet someone would have rung 999.
The Defence noted that throughout a three quarter drive, at speed, going over speed-bumps, hanging on to the bonnet by gripping the windscreen wipers, no damage had been done to the car and Cllr X 'suffered not even a broken finger nail and her sunglasses and phone were intact'.
The Crown suggested to the Jury that Kalwala's account was 'possibly rehearsed' and asked them to consider whether it was the truth or a 'carefully crafted account'. He had not made a statement in June and his written statement was made on December 1st, just 8 weeks ago. This meant there was nothing to compare that account with from the time of the incident. Kalwala claimed that he had remained silent on his solicitor's advice.
There were discrepancies over the fall from the car bonnet and whether X was able to get up afterwards, apparently without injury or whether as a witness claimed she was lying on the ground, holding her neck, apparently in pain.
After X fell from the bonnet Kalwala drove off and the Crown claimed that Kalwala's accoun in court of driving back t the scene and what took place there, conflicted with his writtten statement: whether the ambulance was there when he returned or had driven off, whether the area was cordoned off, whether police were present, whether a resident assured him that X has said she was fine but didn't want her family informed, 'all suggested that the story was made up'.
There was no fundamental dispute over X's injuries which were grazes to her right leg and right foot.
The Jury heard that X had texted Kalwala from hospital claiming he didn't care about her, 'You could have killed me'. The Crown claimed that his response, saying he was sorry, implied that he accepted her account of what happened and asked why, given his good character and success in politics and banking he had not given a full acount to the police at the time.
The Jury heard that X had told police that afternoon that she had had a quarrel with her boyfriend, has got on the bonnet of his car and had fallen off. She didn't want to take any further action.
However, after talking with friends, including Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent council, she had been persuaded to make a full statement to the police as a complainant.
Directing the Jury the Judge said that they could still reach a verdict of Dangerous Driving even if they did not accept the long journey version of the drive. He reminded them that Kalwala had no previous convictions, a clean licence and they had heard from witnesses of his good character.
Kalwala had given a full acount of the his version of the incident and the background to the relationship but hadn't given this account when charged. He had a right to remain silent on the advice of his solicitor and this was an important consideration. However he did have a choice about whether he accepted this advice. It was a question of whether he genuinely relied on this advice or did so because he had no answers to give to the charges.
All in all a very sad case.