Report says jury was unaware of driver’s later crash and acquittal
Bryce James Dridan was found not guilty of negligently or dangerously causing the death of Trent DeZoete, 18, at a burnout event in Victoria. A report says jurors did not hear about two later matters involving Dridan, raising questions about what information was before them and how it related to the case.
DeZoete was struck by Dridan’s modified ute at the Stawell event on 4 November 2023 and died at the scene. The court heard the ute’s rear brakes and handbrake had been removed, a front brake fluid line ruptured, and Dridan had methamphetamine in his system. Four months later, he crashed a Lamborghini into a Ballarat home and was fined for driving offences; he was also later acquitted of charges over allegations that he restrained and filmed a toddler.
- Dridan was acquitted over the fatal burnout event.
- The ute had brake defects and Dridan had methamphetamine in his system.
- Jurors did not hear about later driving offences or toddler-related allegations.
New here? Start with this
Trent DeZoete, aged 18, died at a burnout event in Stawell, Victoria, on 4 November 2023 when struck by a modified ute driven by Bryce James Dridan. Dridan was tried for negligently or dangerously causing the death and was acquitted.
The trial heard evidence that the ute had significant mechanical defects: its rear brakes and handbrake had been removed, and a front brake fluid line had ruptured. Dridan also had methamphetamine in his system at the time of the incident.
A report has examined what information reached the jury during their deliberations. It found that jurors were not made aware of later incidents involving Dridan: four months after the death, he crashed a Lamborghini into a house and was fined for driving offences; he was also subsequently charged with restraining and filming a toddler, though acquitted. The report raises questions about whether the jury had complete information about Dridan's subsequent conduct.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The jury remained unaware Dridan would crash dangerously and face serious allegations within months—information that could have materially shaped their assessment of his character, credibility, and propensity for recklessness. Evidence of pattern behaviour demonstrating someone's tendency toward dangerous conduct is often relevant to evaluating whether they acted recklessly on a specific occasion. A jury fully informed about such conduct might reasonably have viewed Dridan's actions and reliability differently when assessing guilt. Justice is better served when decision-makers have access to material information about a defendant's character and actions.
The case against
Criminal trials must focus on what the defendant did on the specific date charged, not on who they are generally or what they do afterwards. Evidence law restricts character evidence precisely because later incidents, however concerning, do not reliably establish guilt on the original charge—Dridan's subsequent crash involved different circumstances, and the toddler allegations ended in acquittal. Allowing verdicts to rest partly on 'bad character' from months after the trial violates procedural fairness and risks convicting people for their general character rather than their proven conduct. Fair trials require that guilt turns on evidence specific to the charged offence.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “The shocking secrets the jury never heard about the dark past of driver who walked free after teen’s burnout death”.