Top court rules RCMP breached rights of drunk driver | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Top court rules RCMP breached rights of drunk driver

FemmeFatale said:
I realize that our system is based on in coconut until proven guilty. And a verdict of guilty is based on "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" . I get it I a do.

But I haven't seen much improvement. As a matter of fact, I see it getting worse for victims of crime.
Click to expand...

Much of that is the result of the tendency of media to try and sensationalize anything and everything. It's not news, unless it can generate angst and outrage. This sort of thing has been happening forever, and far more people used to walk on charges like this than currently do. In fact the war on impaired driving has virtually been won except for the die hard drunks who would continue to drive, with or without license or car, due to the social campaigns and active enforcement.

This one person going free means that police will be far more careful and prudent, in the future, meaning that others will not be able to benefit from what this person did. This improves the ultimate possibility of conviction, while simultaneously guarding our rights. It's the sort of thing that should have happened the moment that the first HTA 172 case came to trial.
 
FemmeFatale said:
Anyone here think of the rights of the victims here who were injured by a drunk driver?

Ya, I didn't think so.

Everyone's so concerned about the rights of the accused . Who cares about the victims rights.
Click to expand...

Blame the cop(s) for not doing their job on this one.
That said.... mistakes happen... this one just happened to let a drunk driver walk free from his crimes.
 
Tough luck for the victims eh?
 
Last edited:
raginduck said:
Sounds like the lawyer did their job.
Click to expand...

Yup, he facilitated the release of a drunk driver back out on the streets. Well done indeed.
 
FemmeFatale said:
I blame the corrupt criminal lawyers.
Click to expand...

Huh? All the cop had to do was follow one simple rule and there would have been justice for the victim.
 
Listen, I get the rules, I really do, but does it change the fact that some drunk driver got away with it? No it doesn't. And this is where I have the issue, sometimes I feel common sense doesn't apply
 
FemmeFatale said:
Listen, I get the rules, I really do, but does it change the fact that some drunk driver got away with it? No it doesn't. And this is where I have the issue, sometimes I feel common sense doesn't apply
Click to expand...

It doesn't, but lay the blame where it belongs
 
FemmeFatale said:
Listen, I get the rules, I really do, but does it change the fact that some drunk driver got away with it? No it doesn't. And this is where I have the issue, sometimes I feel common sense doesn't apply
Click to expand...

I decided to post this here for a few reasons. When I saw this report in the news ("RCMP breached rights of drunk driver") the first thing I thought was "does a drunk driver have any rights?"</SPAN></SPAN>

I think we all agree about drinking and driving. It is the most stupid thing anyone could do. Many of us (including me) despise drunk drivers that have hurt others. In this case, it is even a convicted drunk driver that got off later on, using an appeal.</SPAN></SPAN>

But the bottom line is, even drunk drivers have constitutional rights. The ruling was basically that one sentence, "the </SPAN></SPAN>duty of police is to provide access to counsel at the earliest practical opportunity". </SPAN>

So I think it is the police that dropped the ball on this one. The police was over-zealous conducting the investigation, and "forgot" that the accused had the constitutional right to counsel.</SPAN></SPAN>

Was the lawyer very "creative" (the lawyer who did the appeal)? Sure, but it is the officers that gave the drunk guy a way out.
 
Yes, I've heard of the black stone formula. And yes, I've heard of David Millgaard & Guy Paul Morin.

But that's not the case here. We're talking about a technicality. And so, because of this, he was able to walk.

That's where I have the issue. No common sense.
 
The access of an accused person to legal counsel is NOT a technicality. Not giving that person that access was a major error on the part of the police, and this is the result.
 
Brian P said:
The access of an accused person to legal counsel is NOT a technicality. Not giving that person that access was a major error on the part of the police, and this is the result.
Click to expand...

This is why I agree with the judgment, despite my reticence over its scope. Complying could be a simple as the officer ringing up the Duty Counsel so that the accused could obtain at least some basic legal advice prior to continuation, or allowing the accused to contact his lawyer if he already has one. Certainly the officer is under no obligation to provide his personal cell phone for this purpose, but must make the effort when the opportunity presents (as in upon arrival at hospital).

And, as I previously stated, the failure of criminal prosecution in no way precludes a civil suit. In fact evidence that is not admissible at trial, may well be usable in a civil suit.
 
Oh please, he was informed of his rights to counsel. Then they sent him to the hospital where he got medical attention and a blood sample was take.


While he was in the hospital they forgot to get him the lawyer?

Let's not get it twisted and say he was blocked completely from getting a lawyer, he got a lawyer, after they got the blood sample, which proved he was drunk.
 
FemmeFatale said:
Oh please, he was informed of his rights to counsel. Then they sent him to the hospital where he got medical attention and a blood sample was take.


While he was in the hospital they forgot to get him the lawyer?

Let's not get it twisted and say he was blocked completely from getting a lawyer, he got a lawyer, after they got the blood sample, which proved he was drunk.
Click to expand...

Informing someone of his rights, then failing to permit him to avail himself of those rights, is denying those rights.

He had the right to deny medical care, which would have eliminated that blood sample evidence.
 
I still feel, that in this particular case, in protecting the rights of the accused, they stepped all over the rights of the victims.

That is where my issue lies. What about the victims.

Fortunately, there was no death in this case, but what if there was? Where is the justice?

Sorry, I just feel that the legal system is flawed.

If any of you were the victims in this case, I believe you would be "singing a different tune"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom