Although we spend a lot of time defending IRPs and driving prohibitions, we are in fact trial lawyers. Much of our work takes place in court. As criminal lawyers we often negotiate plea agreements to get the best result for our clients. When a plea bargain is not in the best interests of our client or is unavailable, we gear up to go to court with the goal of succeeding at trial.
This summer we’ve had some interesting cases, both because of the facts of the cases and the surrounding circumstances.
If you’ve followed IRP law you know about the Spencer decision. It’s worth reading the facts of that case to get an idea about how an investigation can take place and how police officers sometimes treat people.
Brutal cop – acquittal
One matter we dealt with this summer involved the same investigating officer as in the Spencer case. Most interesting is that the investigation took place long before Ms. Spencer was detained by this particular RCMP officer. Like in Spencer, our client was driving a Ford Mustang. Like in Spencer, our client had nothing to drink. Like in Spencer the officer appeared to have imagined evidence that would support an Approved Screening Device demand. Like in Spencer, our client found the officer’s demeanour so threatening that he feared her to the point of hoping other officers would arrive to protect him from her.
From our client’s experience and our own view of the matter, it appears that Ms. Spencer is absolutely credible in her description of the matter as described in the decision. Ms. Spencer did not exaggerate in the slightest when she gave her evidence. This officer was brutal to Ms. Spencer and brutal to our client. We don’t believe a word this officer says.
Thankfully, during the course of the trial this officer did not express the requisite opinion necessary to make the ASD demand, and the case finished before noon. It was a nice trial to win.
Drive While Prohibited – Misinformation
We had two trials this summer with almost the identical facts to one another, but with two different clients and in different courthouses. Both of our clients were charged with driving while prohibited.
In both cases our clients were students studying at university. In both cases our clients were foreign nationals with foreign driver’s licenses that would normally allow them to drive in BC. In both cases the clients were issued the prohibition notices by officers at the roadside. In both cases our clients investigated the prohibition months later and were given information from government agents that they were not prohibited. In both cases the clients were surprised to learn from the police that the prohibition was still in effect.
It is rare that people charged with driving while prohibited can rely on the defence of officially induced error, i.e. that someone in authority told them they were no longer prohibited and it was reasonable to rely on that information. But here we had two cases in a matter of weeks.
When our client was acquitted in the first of the two trials, he took photos of the two of us in front of the Richmond BC courthouse. They are probably on facebook somewhere. We’re glad to report that we were successful in both cases and that our clients were both dealt with fairly in Provincial Court.
Bad day on the road – Good day in court
Another interesting trial of note was for a woman who drove terribly in a badly damaged car after a hit and run she caused. Several people called 911 to report her as an impaired driver, based mainly on the damage to her car and her manner of driving. It was an understandable assumption. When the police dealt with her, although it was clear she had been drinking at least a little, on cross examination even the officer had to concede that his observations wouldn’t support the conclusion that she was intoxicated.
It turns out she was just having a really bad day. These things happen. Given that there are 36 million people in Canada, and 365 days in which to have a bad day in a year – the odds are pretty good that many of us will have bad days, and some will drive badly under the circumstances. Our client wasn’t an impaired driver and she was properly acquitted. She needed our assistance as trial lawyers, and she got the right defence. We succeeded.
Angry ex gets self-righteous
In a domestic assault trial this summer a witness shot back during cross examination to say that our question wasn’t relevant.
As experienced criminal trial lawyers, at that point we always know things will go our way. As soon as a witness wants to hide something, and in particular wants to decide what is relevant in a case, we know that we can get the admissions we need. The witnesses’ entire hand is revealed by that sort of statement. It also shows that this is a witness who is controlling, which always helps in a domestic assault or uttering threats situation. Our client is very happy about the result in his case.
The sun shines on trial lawyers
When you walk out of court on a lovely summer day having succeeded for your client, it is a wonderful feeling to be a successful trial lawyer. For a moment you forget the hours and hours of preparation time for the trial, the legal research, the pondering of scenarios, the drafting of submissions and questions as well as the agony suffered by the client having been wrongly accused.
Such is the life of trial lawyers.