[ad_1]
CORNER BROOK, NL – If successful, a challenge to the Charter will be heard in provincial court in Corner Brook on Thursday, November 10, which could have an impact on future clinical driver charges heard at the federal level. lower court.
Under Sect. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code a person is deemed to be guilty of driving a motor vehicle if within two hours after ceasing to operate a vehicle the blood alcohol content is equal to or containing more than 80 milligrams of alcohol. 100 milliliters of blood.
In the application submitted to the court Robby Ash argues on behalf of his client that the law is too big a law as it criminalizes activity that is not related to its purpose.
The constitutional purpose of the law, he says in his proposal, is to prevent reckless driving, as well as other reckless or dangerous behavior such as “bolus drinking” and attempts to endanger performing breathalyzer tests and proper administration. directly by drinking alcohol between driving and the breathalyzer test.
As he pointed out in the application and his arguments before Judge Wayne Gorman, the law can arrest illegal activities, including people who don’t drink. alcohol before driving, but within two hours after driving they drink alcohol in such a quantity that their blood alcohol exceeds 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.
Ash said that when it was passed the law caught people doing things that parliament did not intend to do.
He said this could incriminate people who have done nothing wrong.
As an overbroad law, he said, Sect. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to life, liberty and security.
Ash said this was approved by parliament and said through Sect. 320.14 (5) of the Criminal Code.
That section provides that no person shall be guilty under Sect. 320.14 (1)(b) if they drink alcohol after stopping driving, there is no reasonable doubt that a breath or blood sample should be given after stopping driving and the same drink alcohol to their blood alcohol. concentration determined in accordance with Subsection 320.31(1) or (2) and who had, at the time of their transportation, a blood alcohol concentration of less than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.
Ash said this provision is not a bar to prosecution but a defense available to people who have been sued.
According to the application Ash is seeking an order by the court stating Sect. 320.14 (1)(b) to overreach and violate his client’s Sect. 7 Charter authority.
Crown attorney Brenda Duffy said it was important for the court to consider what would be best served by the law.
He said the circumstances presented by Ash were not just happening, and the Crown believed there was no basis for the court to decide.
The trial date for Ash’s client on suspicion of blood alcohol level is equal to or more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood within two hours of driving and impaired operation of a vehicle is scheduled for Feb. 24.
Gorman said he would consider the arguments presented by Ash and Duffy and issue a ruling before the trial.
If Ash’s appeal is successful his client cannot be prosecuted.
Other provincial court judges declined to follow the ruling, but Gorman said he agreed with Ash’s position that the charge was unconstitutional, unless another judge considered it a precedent. that they must follow, and then they will all be punished for the future. 80 must stop.
[ad_2]
Source link
