Two witnesses have told a Coleraine Court the details of a journey in a chauffeur driven Mercedes Benz car to Belfast City Airport following the Open Golf tournament in 2025. This led to its driver being charged with excess speed, driving without having the full view of the road and driving without due care & attention.
The charges stemmed from an incident on July 21, 2025, when the defendant, a taxi driver was driving two passengers from Ballystrone Road, Macosquin, to Belfast City Airport.
The prosecution had relied on the testimony of these two passengers, Michael Boardman and Lucy Davies, who both work as air stewards for Virgin Atlantic, but had been over in Northern Irelands working for Mercedes Benz Golf event staff at the Open Golf which was being held at Royal Portrush.
Giving evidence via video link, the court heard they were being chauffeured in a white Mercedes-Benz EQE. The witnesses described a journey beginning at 4:08 a.m. in heavy rainfall and darkness. Both claimed to have detected a “substantial smell of alcohol” in the vehicle, which they believed emanated from the driver, Mr Kane. However, no alcohol-related charges were brought against Mr Kane.
Mr Boardman presented video evidence showing the vehicle travelling at 89 miles per hour on a motorway with a 70 mph limit, an offence Mr Kane had already pleaded guilty to. Both witnesses further alleged that the car veered across motorway lanes multiple times, prompting the vehicle’s safety systems to activate and pull it back. Mr Boardman estimated this occurred “between five and ten times,” while Ms Davies recalled “three to five” instances.
Concerns were also raised about Mr Kane’s ability to see the road. Ms Davies testified that Mr Kane appeared tired, exhibiting “long, slow blinks” throughout the journey. Both passengers stated that the windscreen became “very misty” for approximately ten minutes, and while Mr Kane attempted to clear it by pressing buttons, he initially directed air to the rear vents. Mr Boardman stated the issue caused “substantial concern” and made him and Ms Davies “really nervous.” Ms Davies added, “I felt he didn’t know how to clear the windscreen or use the controls.”
Further allegations included Mr Kane failing to get out of the car to greet them or assist with luggage, and leaving his indicator on after overtaking until Ms Davies prompted him to switch it off. At the airport, he reportedly failed to collect a ticket at the barrier, causing a car behind to sound its horn. The passengers described feeling “anxious,” “unsafe,” and “frozen in the moment” during the drive.
Defence barrister Mr Ben Lowry challenged the reliability of the witnesses, highlighting inconsistencies in their accounts and questioning their motives, as they had sought compensation from the chauffeur company after the incident. Mr Lowry pointed out that neither witness contacted the police immediately after the journey, despite their expressed concerns about Mr Kane’s alleged intoxication and dangerous driving.
The defence argued that the lane-assist system, which the witnesses cited as evidence of veering, could activate merely by approaching lane lines or changing lanes without indicating, not necessarily implying the vehicle had crossed them. Regarding the misted windscreen, Mr Lowry stressed that Mr Kane had taken steps to clear it, and the witnesses, seated in the back, could not definitively assess the driver’s forward visibility.
In his judgment, District Judge King acknowledged the “relatively consistent” evidence of the two witnesses but ultimately found it insufficient to prove the charges of driving without due care and attention and failing to have a full view of the road beyond reasonable doubt. The judge noted the passengers’ decision not to report a suspected drink-driver to the police immediately, instead contacting the chauffeur company.
“I am not going to convict anyone on the basis of a passenger’s perception of feedback from a lane-assist system, particularly when that perception comes from someone sitting in the rear passenger seat,” Judge King stated. He also highlighted discrepancies, such as whether Mr Kane exited the vehicle upon arrival and the incident at the airport ticket barrier. Crucially, the judge found that video footage from inside the vehicle gave “a very clear impression of a clear view down the motorway, without fogging on the windscreen.”
Consequently, the charges were dismissed. Mr Kane’s plea of guilty to excess speed remained. District Judge Peter King stated that the evidence presented did not satisfy the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard required in a criminal court.
For the admitted offence of excess speed, Mr Kane was handed four penalty points, a fine of £120, and a £15 offender levy. The court heard he had no previous convictions or existing points on his licence.
District Judge King advised Mr Kane to be “extremely careful about fixed-penalty notices going forward,” reminding him of the implications of accumulating 12 points on his licence, particularly as a professional driver.
