Drinking and driving charges dropped after defence counsel alleges violation of constitutional rights

The client faced a serious charge in relation to drinking and driving allegations. It was alleged that he intentionally failed to provide a roadside breath sample when ordered to do so by police. If found guilty, the client faced the same minimum penalties he would face if he were convicted of impaired driving or driving with with a BAC “over 80”, which includes a fine of at least a thousand dollars and, more importantly, a driving prohibition for at least one year. Of course, a conviction would also result in a criminal record which could follow the client for the rast of his life.

The client wisely retained a criminal defence lawyer at the earliest opportunity. His lawyer, Tyler MacDonald, worked quickly to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution’s case, devise a strategy,and schedule the earliest possible trial date. When the trial date arrived, the client’s trial was not even able to start because the courtroom was so busy. A new trial date had to be scheduled, and it ended up being several months away.

Before the next trial date, Mr. MacDonald brought an application under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms asserting that the client’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed. Every person charged with a crime has this right. There are no firm deadlines for how soon after being charged a person has to have his or her trial. It all depends on the circumstances and whether there are reasonable explanations for any delays. The courthouse being too busy for the trial to be heard is not a reasonable explanation, but it is also important that the accused and his criminal defence lawyer did not cause any of the delay and took all necessary steps to the matter to trial expeditiously. In this case, the client’s lawyer had done just that. Based on the unreasonable delay caused purely by an overloaded court system, Mr. MacDonald applied for an order that the prosecution of the charged be halted by way a stay of proceedings.

Not long after the application was served on the Crown’s office, confidential negotiations were initiated which led to the charge against the client being dropped. The case therefore ended with the client’s criminal record staying clean and his ability to drive maintained.