A Belleville man is facing some serious driving charges, after a traffic stop east of Ganonoque.
On Sunday night, shortly after 11:00 p.m., Leeds OPP stopped a vehicle on the 401, hitting speeds of 180 kilometres an hour.
After further investigation, 22 year old Cole Larsen of Belleville was charged with impaired driving, failing to provide a sample, stunt driving, driving without insurance and having open liquor in the vehicle.
A Belleville man is facing some serious driving charges, after a traffic stop east of Ganonoque.
On Sunday night, shortly after 11:00 p.m., Leeds OPP stopped a vehicle on the 401, hitting speeds of 180 kilometres an hour.
After further investigation, 22 year old Cole Larsen of Belleville was charged with impaired driving, failing to provide a sample, stunt driving, driving without insurance and having open liquor in the vehicle.
He has an October 7th court date.
Driving without insurance = He was insured through the uninsured motorist act.=Period.
Failing to provide a sample = A charge with impaired driving.
Hitting speeds of 180 kilometres an hour = Leeds OPP stopped a vehicle on the 401=Sound's like they chased him ,endangering the surrounding public.
Criminal code of Canada section 15. OBEDIENCE TO DE FACTO LAW. (67) 15. No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission in obedience to the laws for the time being made and enforced by persons in de facto possession of the sovereign power in and over the place where the act or omission occurs. [R.S., c.C-34, s.15.]
R vs.Trask (1985),45CR. (3d) 137,18 c.c.c. (3d) 514(s.c.c.)-Where defendant has been denied the right to retain an instruct counsel without DELAY, evidence of the breathalyser test should be excluded because its adminission would, in all the circumstances, bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
R v. Penner (1973),22 C.R.N.S.35,12 C.C.C.(2d) 468 (man.C.A.)- Privacy is an essential element of the right to retain and instruct counsel. Not allowing one who has been detained to confer with his lawyer in private when at the Police station is a reasonable excuse for refusing to provide a sample on demand.
R V.Gyori (1993),50 M.V.R. (2b) 82 (alta.C.A.)-the opportunity to consult counsel must be provided at the Police facility to which defendant is taken for the bonna fide purpose of continuing the investigation. The Police are not obliged to take defendant to the nearest police facility for the purpose of contacting counsel where there is no other reason to go to that location.,
R.v.Brotten(1983),24 M.V.R. 76(SASK C.A.)-The section did not require the alleged accused to comply forthwith with the demand and the word comply must be interpreted to mean with in a reasonable time having regard to all circumstances, including alleged defendant s opportunity to speak with counsel.,
The requirement in s254(2) that a breath sample be provided forthwith ”means immediately or very shortly after the defendant has been requested to accompany the officer for the purpose of providing the sample, usually at the roadside or in the immediate vicinity, if the officer is not in the positition to require that a breath sample be provided before any realistic opportunity to consult counsel ,then the demand is not a demand made under s.254(2) and defendant is entitled to refuse to comply with the demand.
Crown counsel are required, on an ongoing basis, to assess every case according to the reasonable prospect of conviction/public interest test set out in the Decision to Prosecute15. Charge review in the mega-trial context requires strict attention to the difficult choices that must be made, and Crown counsel must objectively review the case to determine what the public interest requires, as the Decision to Prosecute policy demands. First, to the extent possible, charge review should be done before charges are laid. This assumes that there has been co-operation with the investigative agency, particularly with respect to the preparation of a package for Crown counsel that gives a comprehensive overview of the investigation and a detailed summary of the evidence against each individual. Meaningful charge review cannot take place without receiving such information, and “prosecutions cannot proceed” where a high standard of “ disclosure is not met.”
Wonder n What the "REAL STORY IS"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEGTx4jDoak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiKqTM0hV0c
-- Edited by Ground Pounder on Wednesday 21st of September 2016 09:14:20 AM
riminal code of Canada section 15. OBEDIENCE TO DE FACTO LAW.
(67) 15. No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission in obedience to the laws for the time being made and enforced by persons in de facto possession of the sovereign power in and over the place where the act or omission occurs. [R.S., c.C-34, s.15.]
R vs.Trask (1985),45CR. (3d) 137,18 c.c.c. (3d) 514(s.c.c.)-Where defendant has been denied the right to retain an instruct counsel without DELAY, evidence of the breathalyser test should be excluded because its adminission would, in all the circumstances, bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
R v. Penner (1973),22 C.R.N.S.35,12 C.C.C.(2d) 468 (man.C.A.)- Privacy is an essential element of the right to retain and instruct counsel. Not allowing one who has been detained to confer with his lawyer in private when at the Police station is a reasonable excuse for refusing to provide a sample on demand.
R V.Gyori (1993),50 M.V.R. (2b) 82 (alta.C.A.)-the opportunity to consult counsel must be provided at the Police facility to which defendant is taken for the bonna fide purpose of continuing the investigation. The Police are not obliged to take defendant to the nearest police facility for the purpose of contacting counsel where there is no other reason to go to that location.,
R.v.Brotten(1983),24 M.V.R. 76(SASK C.A.)-The section did not require the alleged accused to comply forthwith with the demand and the word comply must be interpreted to mean with in a reasonable time having regard to all circumstances, including alleged defendant s opportunity to speak with counsel.,
The requirement in s254(2) that a breath sample be provided forthwith ”means immediately or very shortly after the defendant has been requested to accompany the officer for the purpose of providing the sample, usually at the roadside or in the immediate vicinity, if the officer is not in the positition to require that a breath sample be provided before any realistic opportunity to consult counsel ,then the demand is not a demand made under s.254(2) and defendant is entitled to refuse to comply with the demand.
