Friday, November 2, 2012

Impaired driving in the Supreme Court

In a 5-2 split decision, the Supreme Court has thrown out two provisions put into the law by the Conservative government's 2008 Tackling Violent Crime Act.

Those changes required that a defendant who raised a reasonable doubt about the functioning or operation of a breathalyzer machine also had to prove the reading was too high and that the driver had not consumed enough alcohol to produce it.

The justices say those last two provisions go too far.

They say once a reasonable doubt has been raised about the machine, that should be enough.


The Rat said...

Good decision. The get tough on crime stuff shouldn't mean unreasonable burdens of proof on the defendant. I do believe it should be easier to declare repeat felons dangerous offenders because there is ample evidence by that point that the defendant is a repeat offender. I think we have gone way too far on drunk driving and especially with the "administrative" roadside suspensions a lot of provinces are adopting.

James C Morton said...