Giving evidence in the Hamilton District Court yesterday, Detective Constable Harjot Sandhu revealed that after the crash, Sharma’s phone was first used to search “how to delete Tesla recordings” in the Safari web browser.
Thirty-six seconds later he called 111, for zero seconds, then called his sister, and brother-in-law, who was a policeman.
In what were at times slightly tense exchanges between Sandhu and defence counsel Shafraz Khan, Khan put forward a possible explanation for the Tesla search - the result of the phone’s “auto-populate” function - when the phone automatically offers options when someone is typing into the search bar.
“It is entirely possible that the search that occurred was auto-populated,” adding that all Sharma had to do was type the word “how to” and it could have resulted in the remaining words.
“I would find it a coincidence that before ringing 111 someone is going on Safari and just typing in ‘how to’ and it just picks up ‘delete Tesla recordings’,” Sandhu said.
“I would find it strange,” he added.
Khan explained that Tesla recordings weren’t the car’s data, but the vehicle’s dashcam recording.
Sharma didn’t have a Tesla app on his phone, and Khan quizzed Sandhu why police didn’t press Tesla for further data about his client’s vehicle.
“One of the detectives made the inquiries, they said there was nothing, no data,” Sandhu said.
“And you took Tesla for its word?” Khan put to him.
Sandhu asked where he should go, before Khan said, “maybe the court for a warrant?”
Saurbh Sharma, 26, of Auckland, pictured outside the Huntly District Court last month. Photo / Belinda Feek
“You just trust these companies,” Khan asked him.
“Trust is a big thing,” Sandhu replied.
Khan asked him whether he’d heard of the term “confirmation bias”, adding that during the time between the crash and the interview - 15 days - police had time to analyse his client’s phone and had already come to a “preliminary view of the case”.
“In any investigation, you want as much information as you can,” Sandhu replied.
Sharma’s police DVD interview played to the court earlier indicated he’d been going “at least” 140km/h at the time of the crash, based on the damage to the car - described by one officer as being left a “metal carcass” - and that someone died.
Khan suggested police didn’t have any solid proof at that stage.
“It was just based on the preliminary findings of the serious crash report,” Sandhu said.
“The report was not out at that time,” Khan replied, to which Sandhu agreed.
“There were no eyewitness statements or vehicle data. So your preliminary view is just something that you have come up with because it’s a single-vehicle crash,” Khan put to him.
Shubham Kaur had just become a barrister when she was killed in the January 2022 crash. Photo / Supplied
He said the car’s software had just been updated and there was a “huge change to the system”.
Sandhu repeatedly asked Sharma about Kaur’s injuries during the interview, but all he could say was that she was unconscious and not responding to him.
Sandhu reminded him what he told an officer at the scene, “she’s dead, she’s dead”, and that she’d lost part of her skull.
“I don’t remember,” Sharma replied as he put his head in his hands.
Asked why he texted a relative that the Tesla had turned him into a “rough driver”, and that he was now a “dangerous driver”, Sharma said he was joking.
As for the auto-drive function, Sharma said he’d tried it “but not too much”.
“Every now and then because I’m not really trusting the car to drive itself.”
Asked if he was using it on the day of the crash, he replied, “oh, no, no, no, no”.
Sandhu said their preliminary investigation suggested he was travelling “at least” 140km/h at the time of the crash, based on the damage to the car and the seriousness of the crash.
“That was a good friend of mine ... all my life savings were in the car. I would not want to risk it. That’s my career, everything. [Chartered accountancy] I care about a lot.”
