Regina v. M* was a decision of the Provincial Court of British Columbia, Surrey Registry in which the accused was charged with impaired driving. The Case For The Prosecution The prosecution’s evidence was based on the testimony of the investigating officer in the case, an R.C.M.P. officer with 25 years experience. The officer testified that while on duty in an unmarked police car he observed a vehicle enter the roadway from a driveway with its tires squealing and the vehicle fishtailing. The officer further observed the vehicle make an illegal left turn, and then accelerate rapidly and weave back and forth. The officer put the vehicle’s speed at consistently over 90 kph in a 50 kph zone. When stopped, the officer testified that he detected a strong odour of liquor emanating from the vehicle, and that the accused driver had bloodshot, watery eyes, slurred speech, and held on to the car door for support. The officer then administered roadside sobriety tests that the accused failed to do properly in the officer’s opinion. The Case For The Defence The defence conducted by David Albert focussed on the legal requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant was not called to testify. Instead, cross-examination of the police officer formed the crux of the defence case. The cross-examination focussed on possible causes other than impairment for the vehicle’s tires squealing and fishtailing, the police officer’s previous observations of other drivers making similar illegal left turns, and the officer’s acknowledgement that he might have proceeded differently if the defendant had passed the roadside sobriety tests. Mr. Albert used this last point to argue that the officer himself had not concluded with the necessary degree of legal certainty that the accused was impaired. The Result The judge concluded that the defendant was entitled to rely on the alternative inferences (explanations) for the defendant’s driving behaviour raised by Mr. Albert’s cross-examination of the R.C.M.P. officer, which rendered parts of the prosecution’s evidence equivocal. As a result, he concluded that the crown’s case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was found not guilty. * To request a copy of the complete reasons for judgment in this case, please click here. Case Study Disclaimer: The case studies on this web site are intended to be illustrative of various legal situations for which Stern & Albert commonly appear as legal counsel. Every case is unique. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases. Back to Case Studies

Tel: (604) 590-5600  |  Fax: (604) 590-5626  |  Email: info@sternandalbert.com Site Design: Skunkworks Creative Group

LawOne Network Law Firm: Vancouver + Surrey Criminal Lawyers