Wilson & Lafleur
Catalogue » Détail

343.166.18

Defending Drinking and Driving Cases 2018

Auteur(s) :
Gold, Alan D.
Éditeur :
Carswell
Année :
2018
Nombre de pages :
560
Type de reliure :
Softcover
ISBN :
978-0-7798-8487-2
Prix :
106,00 $
Format :
Papier

Table des matières  

Présentation

Defending Drinking and Driving Cases assists defence counsel in defending a client charged with a drinking and driving offence in a logical and coherent fashion, from the beginning to the end of the process. This practical guidebook by renowned criminal defence lawyer Alan D. Gold provides sound, practical advice on all steps along the way. It includes how to handle a phone call from the police station, factual issues to note, novel defences, the relevant law, and sentencing. Topics addressed include the validity of the approved screening device test, proof of impairment, admissibility of blood and breathalyzer tests results, Charter defences, the concept of "care and control," and sentencing. The technical aspects of demands, breathalyzer reports, certificates, blood alcohol content reports, and alcohol influence reports are also covered.

New in this edition

This 2018 edition has been updated to reflect all the legislative developments since the last edition and incorporates all significant developments in the case law, including:

  • Cyr-Langlois v. R. (Q.C. C.A.) – evidence adduced by the accused to the effect that he was not under observation for a minimum of 20 minutes preceding the administration of a breathalyzer test was sufficient to deny the prosecution the benefit of the presumptions set out at s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.
  • R. v. MacInnis (Alta. P.C.) – s. 9 of the Charter was breached where the officer directed accused to exit vehicle and go with officer for screening device test where no necessity was shown why test could not be done at accused's vehicle.
  • R. v. Nguyen (Ont. C.J.) – charges dismissed after detailed review of precedents where police processed accused without benefit of interpreter notwithstanding obvious language issue.
  • R. v. Lachapelle (Ont. S.C.J.) – there is no onus on an accused in cases of actual care and control to disprove the element of risk.

Également d’intérêt en droit Pénal/Criminel



160 internautes ont consulté cette page.

Copyright © 2018 Librairie Wilson & Lafleur inc. Tous droits réservés