Defending Drinking, Drugs and Driving Cases 2019 assists defence counsel in defending a client charged with drinking, drugs and driving.
Defending Drinking, Drugs and Driving Cases assists defence counsel in defending a client charged with a drinking, drugs and driving offence in a logical and coherent fashion, from the beginning to the end of the process. This practical guidebook by renowned criminal defence lawyer Alan D. Gold provides sound, practical advice on all steps along the way. It includes how to handle a phone call from the police station, factual issues to note, novel defences, the relevant law, and sentencing. Topics addressed include the validity of the approved screening device test, proof of impairment, admissibility of blood and breathalyzer tests results, Charter defences, the concept of "care and control," and sentencing. The technical aspects of demands, breathalyzer reports, certificates, blood alcohol content reports, and alcohol influence reports are also covered.
New in this edition
The 2019 edition has been updated to reflect all the legislative developments since the last edition, the most notable of which is the December 2018 repeal and replacement of the Criminal Code’s driving offences regime by An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2018, c. 21 (formerly, Bill C-46). In addition to commentary updates to reflect the Code’s new Part VIII.1, Offences relating to Conveyances, the author also provides a convenient concordance relating the new and enhanced offences with their repealed predecessors.
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. Roberts (Ont. C.A.) – While evidence lawfully obtained through roadside sobriety testing may be admissible to establish grounds for arrest or detention, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reasoned that such evidence would not be admissible as proof of the detainee’s alcohol consumption or impairment itself in the absence of a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel.
- R. v. Cyr-Langlois (S.C.C.) – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused’s evidence, showing he had not been under observation for a minimum of twenty minutes before administration of the breathalyzer test, was not sufficient to deny the Crown the benefit of the presumptions set out in former s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.
- R. v. Gubbins (S.C.C.) – The Supreme Court of Canada authoritatively settled the question of historical instrument records by holding maintenance records for the breathalyzer used in this case to be third party records, which, in turn, triggers the requirement for the accused to show their likely relevance in order to obtain disclosure of these records.