Criminal charge of hit & run after serious accident – Crown counsel agreed to take plea under Motor Vehicle Act – NO CRIMINAL RECORD & NO DRIVING PROHIBITION
Impaired Driving & Driving “Over 80” with Accident – NO CHARGES
R. v. R.M. (2009)
Police fail to make a critical demand for breath sample quickly enough to comply with the law – NO CHARGES LAID
IMPAIRED DRIVING AND OVER .08 – RESOLVED UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
R. v. D.M. (2009 BC Provincial Court)
Client was charged with impaired driving and driving with a Blood Alcholol Content of 140 milligrams – almost TWICE the legal limit. After spending several months negotiating with a number of Crown Prosecutors, Vancouver Criminal Defense Lawyer Emmet J. Duncan persuaded the Crown to DROP the CRIMINAL charges and accept a plea to a driving offence under the Motor Vehicle Act. Mr. Duncan’s client received a SHORT driving prohibition and a FINE with time to pay the fine. Client was able to come away from the experience with NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
Impaired Driving and Driving “Over 80” Charges DROPPED
R. v. A.B. (2010 BCPC)
Client charged with Impaired Driving (DUI or DWI) AND Driving “Over 80” after police followed her outside of a bar and she both failed a roadside screening device (ASD) and “blew” more than TWICE the legal limit. Vancouver Criminal Defense Lawyer Emmet J. Duncan persuaded Crown that the police officer made NUMEROUS errors including: FAILING to observe an adequate waiting period before administering the “roadside screening device” (or “ASD”); failing to respect Client’s right to consult with COUNSEL OF CHOICE; and improperly observing Client before the breath samples to protect her from having MOUTH ALCOHOL lead to a false positive result on the BAC Datamaster C (the Breathalyzer) instrument. Vancouver Criminal Defense Lawyer Emmet J. Duncan also supplied Crown with evidence that the Qualified Technician failed to FOLLOW PROTOCOL after receiving an ERROR MESSAGE from the breathalyzer. Crown agreed to DROP the criminal charges and accept a plea to an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act. Client receives NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
Driving While Prohibited – Charges DROPPED
R. v. C.S. (2010 BC Prov. Ct.)
Client charged with Driving While Prohibited and facing MANDATORY MINIMUM prohibition from driving and fines. On the eve of trial, Vancouver Criminal Defense Counsel Emmet J. Duncan persuaded the prosecutor that due to issues with the file and the background of the Client, it would be appropriate to proceed by way of a ticket for driving without a licence, and secured the agreement of the Crown Prosecutor to NOT SEEK A DRIVING PROHIBITION. Client KEEPS HIS LICENCE and his record remains CLEAR OF ANY CONVICTIONS FOR PROHIBITED DRIVING.
Dangerous Driving, Impaired Driving, Driving Over 0.08 – Charges DROPPED
R. v. J.S. (2010 BC Provincial Court)
Client arrested on allegations of DANGEROUS DRIVING throughout the Lower Mainland including North Vancouver, was IMPAIRED DRIVING (DUI) and DRIVING OVER THE LEGAL LIMIT (Over 08), with a blood alcohol level (BAC) of 140, the legal limit being 80.
Vancouver Criminal Defense Lawyer Emmet J. Duncan negotiated over several months with Crown Counsel and after those negotiations, the Prosecution agreed that in the face of a variety of problems with the Crown case, and even more so, given substantial steps the Client had taken towards rehabilitation, the most appropriate way to deal with the case was to DROP ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES and accept a guilty plea under the Motor Vehicle Act. Client receives NO CRIMINAL RECORD as a result of this disposition.
DRIVING OVER 0.08 – DROPPED
R. v. B.N. (2010 B.C. Provincial Court)
Client stopped in a car stop because he went through an intersection whose light had turned yellow. Although he denied consuming any alcohol, the police officer detected an odour of liquor from Client’s breath and administered a roadside screening test (also known an Approved Screening Device, or “ASD”) and arrested the Client for driving with a blood alcohol content (or “BAC”) of over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood. This is known as the “over 80” or “over 0.08” offence. Some people also refer to it as “blowing over.”
Vancouver Criminal Defence Lawyer Emmet J. Duncan persuaded the Crown Prosecutor that there were numerous problems with the police investigation, including the possibility that the roadside screening test was premature; that police took too long to demand Client’s breath sample; that police took too long to take Cient to the detachment; and that by waiting MORE than two hours to take breath samples, Crown could NOT prove Client’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving. Vancouver Criminal Defence Lawyer Emmet J. Duncan persuaded Crown to DROP the criminal charge because Client was agreeable to pleading to a Motor Vehicle offence. Client received modest fine and six points on his licence. Client receives NO criminal record and NO driving prohibition.
Dangerous Driving Charge DROPPED & Plea to Police Pursuit Leads to NO JAIL and NO CRIMINAL RECORD
R. v. W.F. (2010 BC Provincial Court)
Client involved in police chase that led to multiple vehicle collision leading to allegedly more than $70,000 in property damage. Client charged with DANGEROUS DRIVING and CAUSING A POLICE PURSUIT (also known as “evading police” or “flight from a police officer”). Vancouver Criminal Defense Lawyer Emmet J. Duncan persuaded the Crown to DROP the dangerous driving charges and on a guilty plea to the charge of causing a police pursuit, persuaded the provincial court judge that given the Client’s young age, lack of a criminal record, bright prospects and hearfelt acceptance of responsibility, Client should receive a CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE which not only means NO JAIL for the Client, but also means the Client will NOT have a CRIMINAL RECORD.
Prohibited Driving – Charges DROPPED
R. v. H.S. (2010 B.C. Provincial Court)
Client stopped and served with driving prohibition. Six weeks later police stop Client and charge him with Driving While Prohibited. Vancouver Criminal Defense Lawyer Emmet J. Duncan persuades prosecutor that due to the way in which the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles ORIGINALLY sent the notice (by mail), Client was misled as to the true starting point of the prohibition and thought that when he was driving, he was in fact NOT prohibited. Prohibited Driving Charges were DROPPED and Client plead guilty to driving without a licence; NO conviction for driving while prohibited; NO year long driving prohibition.
Impaired Driving – Acquittal After Trial
R. v. C.W. (2010 B.C. Provincial Court)
Client involved in motor vehicle accident. Police flagged down and after observing some signs and symptoms of impairment, require Client to give a roadside breath sample into an Approved Screening Device (ASD) (also known as a roadside screening device). After Client “fails” that test, she is brought to the detachment and further samples are taken, registering 190 and 200 – well over DOUBLE the legal limit. At trial, Vancouver Criminal Defence Lawyer Emmet J. Duncan cross-examines three police witnesses and one civilian then SUCCESSFULLY ARGUES that the ORIGINAL demand (at the roadside) was UNLAWFUL, making the subsequent collection of breath samples a breach of hte Client’s rights. ALL CHARGES DISMISSED; client ACQUITTED; NO jail time; NO criminal record; NO driving prohibition.