Product details

Publisher: 
Carswell
Practice area: 
Criminal law & procedure
Jurisdiction: 
General
Publication date: 
2021-06-10
ISBN: 
9781731908889
Carswell

Defending Drinking, Drugs and Driving Cases 2021

Author: Alan Gold
Availability: In Stock

Turn to Defending Drinking, Drugs and Driving Cases 2021 as a guide on how to defend a client charged with a drinking and driving offence. This practical book by prominent criminal defence lawyer Alan D. Gold offers advice on the entire the process, including how to handle a phone call from the police station, factual issues to note, novel defences, the relevant law, and sentencing.

All significant case law developments that had taken place since the last edition have been incorporated into commentary revisions, and include the following decisions:

  • R. v. George (MBCA): The court of appeal held reasonable suspicion requires "only that the belief be one of a number of possible conclusions based on the supporting facts, not a probability.”
  • R. v. Paterson (SKCA): The court of appeal held that In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the trial judge properly concluded that the failure of police forces in Saskatchewan to change their practices following Wildfong and the several decisions dealing with the same issue in Ontario reflected a lack of diligence. Moreover, the court of appeal found the appeal judge erred in concluding the trial judge was wrong to draw an inference that there had been a video system in place for a long time that captured detainees going to the toilet and, that being the case, the behaviour of the officer in not providing extra privacy to Ms. Paterson was routine.
  • R. v. Fenn (ABPC): The court explained that ‘failure to invoke’ is something different than ‘waiver’. This doctrinal addition is born out of a concern about the Crown’s ability to establish in routine cases the fulsome requirements for waiver. If an accused has sought his right to counsel then before he can validly change his mind and waive that right he must be given an additional Prosper warning to inform him that the police have to hold off seeking evidence from him until his right to counsel has been respected.
  • R. v. Sweet (SKPC): The court held that a less formal, plain language demand is equally effective so long as it conveys the correct information to the person upon whom the demand is made. The court also wrote that a breath demand made two to three minutes after a police officer forms her reasonable suspicion that a driver has alcohol in their body is not made "as soon as" the officer formed her suspicion.
  • R. v. Desjardins (ONCJ).): The court held that where the impairment is alleged to be caused by drug consumption, the Crown must prove deficiencies in performance were due to drug consumed and not some other cause.
  • R. v. Paradis (NSPC): The court held a charge of failing to provide a screening device breath sample requires proof of the legality of the screening device.
  • R. v. Brar (ONCJ): The court held a “refusal” will be excluded from evidence if obtained after a s. 10(b) violation.
Carswell

Defending Drinking, Drugs and Driving Cases 2021

Author: Alan Gold
Availability: In Stock

Description

Turn to Defending Drinking, Drugs and Driving Cases 2021 as a guide on how to defend a client charged with a drinking and driving offence. This practical book by prominent criminal defence lawyer Alan D. Gold offers advice on the entire the process, including how to handle a phone call from the police station, factual issues to note, novel defences, the relevant law, and sentencing.

All significant case law developments that had taken place since the last edition have been incorporated into commentary revisions, and include the following decisions:

  • R. v. George (MBCA): The court of appeal held reasonable suspicion requires "only that the belief be one of a number of possible conclusions based on the supporting facts, not a probability.”
  • R. v. Paterson (SKCA): The court of appeal held that In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the trial judge properly concluded that the failure of police forces in Saskatchewan to change their practices following Wildfong and the several decisions dealing with the same issue in Ontario reflected a lack of diligence. Moreover, the court of appeal found the appeal judge erred in concluding the trial judge was wrong to draw an inference that there had been a video system in place for a long time that captured detainees going to the toilet and, that being the case, the behaviour of the officer in not providing extra privacy to Ms. Paterson was routine.
  • R. v. Fenn (ABPC): The court explained that ‘failure to invoke’ is something different than ‘waiver’. This doctrinal addition is born out of a concern about the Crown’s ability to establish in routine cases the fulsome requirements for waiver. If an accused has sought his right to counsel then before he can validly change his mind and waive that right he must be given an additional Prosper warning to inform him that the police have to hold off seeking evidence from him until his right to counsel has been respected.
  • R. v. Sweet (SKPC): The court held that a less formal, plain language demand is equally effective so long as it conveys the correct information to the person upon whom the demand is made. The court also wrote that a breath demand made two to three minutes after a police officer forms her reasonable suspicion that a driver has alcohol in their body is not made "as soon as" the officer formed her suspicion.
  • R. v. Desjardins (ONCJ).): The court held that where the impairment is alleged to be caused by drug consumption, the Crown must prove deficiencies in performance were due to drug consumed and not some other cause.
  • R. v. Paradis (NSPC): The court held a charge of failing to provide a screening device breath sample requires proof of the legality of the screening device.
  • R. v. Brar (ONCJ): The court held a “refusal” will be excluded from evidence if obtained after a s. 10(b) violation.