International Law

R. v. Vanmerrebach

Ford Mustangs have a bad reputation. Mainly for stalling for no particular reason. But also because young people turn into idiots when they get behind the wheel. In this case before the Nova Scotia Supreme Court (pdf file) the accused was driving home in his “newly acquired” ‘Stang with a pair of friends when he lost control and sailed into a utility pole. One of the passengers died and the other was seriously injured.

What makes the case interesting is the need to distinguish between criminal negligence and dangerous driving. In particular, it addresses the question of when criminal negligence can be found in cases where excessive speed alone is the cause of the accident.

Justice Wright found “very little case authority where the causal factor of speed and speed alone has resulted in a conviction for criminal negligence.” Indeed he only mentions one case out of British Columbia (Scales). And actually what was said in Scales (by the B. C. Court of Appeal) was this (emphasis added):

The appellant before us argues that the judge erred in registering a conviction of criminal negligence causing death, suggesting that this accident involved speed alone and that speed alone does not suffice to underpin a conviction of that sort and inferentially arguing that perhaps speed alone would not suffice to underpin a conviction of dangerous driving causing death. It seems to me that that is a proposition that I would not want to uncritically agree with, but I simply say that this is not a case of speed alone in any event because here we had a situation where a vehicle was travelling at a very high rate of speed in an area of roadway that was curved that presented a potential danger. Certain of the witnesses referred to portions of that curve where the accident happened as rather tight and one that you would not immediately apprehend when you came into the curve. Mr. Scales testified that he was well familiar with this road but this was a time of day when there was darkness and of course other vehicles could or might have been in that curving portion of the roadway which add to the difficulties of driving and the dangers. It seems to me that the speed here was very excessive having regard to the nature of the roadway.

As Justice Wright goes on to point out,

More commonly in criminal negligence cases . . . the court has found one or more additional acts of negligence combined with the excessive speed factor, e.g., driving while impaired, racing, driving on the wrong side of the road, reckless passing and running red lights or stop signs. It is such combinations that increase the extent of the marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person.

More predominantly in the case law, the causal factor of speed and speed alone is found to sustain a conviction for dangerous driving.

As was held here.

This seems to leave the question of whether speed alone can ground a conviction of criminal negligence open.

Full post as published by Criminal Review on January 10, 2008 (boomark / email).