Driving without due care and attention is an offence under BC’s Motor Vehicle Act (MVA). Section 144 of the Act prohibits driving: without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration of others on the highway, and driving on a highway at an excessive speed relative to traffic, visibility, or weather conditions.
Although it’s not a criminal offence, the minimum punishment is a $100 fine. Usually, the fine is $368. If a court convicts a person of a motor vehicle offence, it may consider their driving record and, if it deems it necessary, impose a driving prohibition under s.98 of the MVA.
Prohibition for driving without due care and attention
It is possible to appeal a prohibition for driving without due care and attention if the appellant can prove to a court that the sentencing judge committed an “error in principle” or if the sentence is outside an “acceptable range.”
In a recent Supreme Court of British Columbia judgment, a woman sought to overturn a five-year driving prohibition. Barbara’s Husband was found guilty of driving without due care and attention after she ran over and injured a three-and-a-half-year-old toddler with her car in a parking lot.
Ms. Husband, who was 83 at the time, had no criminal record and a clean driving extract. Despite this, the trial judge handed down the driving prohibition on the same day as the trial, along with a $500 fine.
The reasons the trial judge gave for the prohibition were that Ms. Husband’s actions showed a complete lack of attention to the road, her apparent lack of remorse, and the fact she denied running over the child at trial. The judge said Ms. Husband’s actions almost amounted to dangerous driving, and she posed a significant risk to other road users, so she needed to be taken off the road.
Grounds of appeal for judge’s sentencing discretion
The two broad grounds of appeal to intervene in a trial judge’s sentencing discretion are: did the judge commit an “error in principle,” and was the sentence outside an “acceptable range”?
An error in principle is failing to take a relevant factor into account, taking an irrelevant factor into account, downplaying or overemphasizing factors, or an error of law.
A sentence is outside an acceptable range if it is “clearly unreasonable,” “clearly unreasonable,” “clearly or manifestly excessive,” “clearly excessive or inadequate,” “demonstrably unfit,” or a “substantial and marked departure.”
Ms. Husband argued the five-year ban was a demonstrably unfit sentence and the trial judge failed to give adequate weight to her mitigating factors, namely that she had no prior convictions. She also disputed the judge’s finding that she was not remorseful and said the sentence was not proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
The Supreme Court dismissed all of Ms. Husband’s grounds of appeal and upheld the sentence. The judge said: “In upholding the five‑year driving prohibition, I recognize that this may result in a lifetime driving ban for Ms. Husband… The reality is that many citizens of Ms. Husband’s age voluntarily give up their driver’s licence.”
If you have been charged or convicted of driving without due care and attention, call Acumen Law Corporation at 604-685-8889.
I was recently issued a ticket on MVA 144(1)(6) for $196. The ticket was served by tithe police at my home because a cyclist complained.I plan to take this to court because I disagree entirely. The police were not on scene and never interviewed me.