
A P.E.I. man accused of drunk driving causing death in a fatal car crash in 2024 that killed two people has been found not guilty of the charges.
Subscribe now to access this story and more:
- Unlimited access to the website and app
- Exclusive access to premium content, newsletters and podcasts
- Full access to the e-Edition app, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on
- Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists
- Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists
Subscribe or sign in to your account to continue your reading experience.
- Unlimited access to the website and app
- Exclusive access to premium content, newsletters and podcasts
- Full access to the e-Edition app, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on
- Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists
- Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists
Create an account or sign in to continue your reading experience.
- Access additional stories every month
- Share your thoughts and join the conversation in our commenting community
- Get email updates from your favourite authors
Sign In or Create an Account
Thommachen Thomas Panackal, 27, appeared in P.E.I. Supreme Court in Charlottetown on Oct. 19 to hear Justice Gregory Cann deliver his decision in the matter.
Panackal previously pleaded not guilty to two counts of impaired driving causing death, two counts of having a blood-alcohol concentration above the legal limit causing death and driving while disqualified.
Panackal had a trial in Summerside on April 13-16. He was represented in court by defence lawyer Brandan Hubley. The Crown was represented by Chad McQuaid. The defence did not call any evidence at the trial and Panackal did not testify.
Cann recounted the evidence presented at the trial. He said that in the early morning hours of Friday, Aug. 2, 2024 (around 4:45 a.m.), a 2009 Toyota Corolla left the Route 1 offramp near Albany at a high rate of speed, crossed Route 1A and the Route 1A offramp and became airborne. The vehicle was travelling at 126 km/h prior to losing control.
The vehicle was found on its side in an adjacent ditch. All four occupants, including Panackal, were ejected from the vehicle. The crash killed two occupants — Dona Shaji and Jugal Mehta.
Panackal and the other surviving occupant — Albin Siby — were also injured in the crash. The vehicle was registered to Mehta. An accident reconstruction could not establish who was driving the vehicle.
Panackal’s blood-alcohol level was not specified in the decision. But Cann did say if Panackal operated the vehicle, the evidence establishes that his blood-alcohol level was “well in excess” of the statutory limit and his ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol.
Siby testified at the trial and said the day before the fatal crash, he and Mehta helped Shaji move into a new accommodation. Afterwards, Shaji went to Siby’s residence.
Around midnight, Mehta called and Siby and Shaji went to Panackal’s residence. Mehta, Siby and Panackal drank alcohol. At some point in the early morning hours of Aug. 2, 2024, they left the residence in the Toyota to buy cigarettes.
Siby said Mehta was driving, Shaji was in the front passenger’s seat and he and Panackal were in the back seat. The plan was to stop at a gas station near the Maypoint Road roundabout. Instead, they continued driving on Route 1 towards Borden-Carleton.
At one point (probably in the Crapaud area), the car pulled over and everyone got out. Siby said when they got back into the vehicle, he sat in the passenger’s seat, Panackal was in the driver’s seat and the two victims sat in the back seat.
Siby described Panackal’s driving as shifting the car’s manual gears faster and making it sound louder. Panackal then drove in a normal manner. Then they took the exit to Summerside. Siby thought the car would not make the curve in the offramp to Route 1A. Then the car “just flipped.” According to Siby, there were no changes to who drove the vehicle after Panackal began driving.
Cann found Siby’s testimony to be credible; however, he had concerns with its reliability. Cann said that he did not believe Siby lied or intentionally misled the court but rather did his best to describe events as he recalled them.
“I considered his efforts to provide accurate testimony to be sincere. In other words, I found his testimony to be credible. However, credible evidence is not always reliable or trustworthy. It is in the realm of trustworthiness that Mr. Siby’s testimony faltered,” said Cann.
Some of the misgivings Cann had about the reliability of the testimony were that Siby was fatigued (mentally and physically exhausted) at the time of the events from helping his friend move and he had not slept since waking up the previous morning. He was also drinking alcohol (whisky); although he said he was “not that drunk.”
Police officers at the crash scene testified that Siby didn’t show any signs of impairment. However, given that Siby was injured, fatigued and distressed, assessing his level of impairment must have been difficult, said Cann. Even so, the evidence didn’t suggest that Siby was “falling down drunk.”
Cann also noted that Siby was inattentive with his surroundings, at least during part of the drive, including failing to notice when their vehicle passed a truck in a residential area no-passing zone at a high rate of speed.
That incident was captured on another motorist’s dash camera and shown to Siby.
“In the absence of a more generalized memory loss, Mr. Siby’s failure to notice it is rather remarkable,” said Cann.
Other reliability concerns were raised by Cann; however, a main one was inconsistencies between Siby’s statements to police a month after the crash and his testimony in court.
In September 2024, Siby told police that he thought Panackal drove and Mehta sat in the back seat, but also admitted that he wasn’t sure.
“I don’t know whether they changed the seat or anything,” he said to police.
“I’m not saying Thomas was driving. I’m not 100 per cent sure Thomas was driving. But I’m not 100 per cent sure if it’s like Thomas or Jugal.”
“Like we switched seats … like probably Jugal was driving … and it’s Jugal’s car and Dona was sitting in the front. When we switched, Dona went in the back and I hope it’s Jugal went to the back. Or either Jugal or Thomas went to the back. But I hope that it’s Thomas but I’m not 100 per cent sure.”
Cann said that by the time of the trial, Siby stated his belief that Panackal was driving “with a great deal more confidence.” But Cann added that there was no meaningful explanation for the inconsistencies between the September 2024 statements and his trial testimony.
As a result of Siby’s testimony not being sufficiently reliable as to who was driving, Cann found Panackal not guilty of the charges.
“Mr. Panackal may have been driving but it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was,” said Cann.
Terrence McEachern is a justice reporter for The Guardian in Prince Edward Island. He can be reached at tmceachern@postmedia.com.
This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
