In this case, the Alberta Court of Appeal considers whether a trial judge must have within his or her contemplation the rule from Hodges when considering evidence of impaired driving. The rule in Hodges requires that a trial judge consider whether impairment by alcohol is the only rational inference that can be drawn from the evidence. The court, in a unanimous decision, held that a trial judge is not required to have the rule from Hodges in his or her contemplation when evaluating evidence of impaired driving.
The accused was charged with impaired driving after an officer observed the accused driving with his vehicle lights out after leaving a drinking establishment. The accused drove through three stop signs without attempting to brake and was subsequently pulled over. While the rule remains a valid means for ensuring the doctrine of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is properly applied to the facts, it is not the only device for doing so. The only true requirement is that the trial judge is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of impaired driving. In reaching its decision, the Court refers to R v. Griffin, 2009 SCC 28, wherein the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed its departure from any legal requirement of a “special instruction” with respect to circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court further stated that the only requirement is that the trier of fact be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the only rational inference that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence is that the accused is guilty (see Griffin, para 33).
Brandon Walker
*
No comments:
Post a Comment