REVscene Automotive Forum - Speeder going 140 km/h on Oak who killed someone acquitted

It's quite clear that the accident caused death, the question then becomes "was the driving dangerous?"

Criminal Code of Canada (Dangerous Driving)

249 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates

(a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place.

The Offence of Dangerous Driving Causing Death

[59] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Beatty, supra, restated the test in R. v. Hundal, supra, for dangerous driving at page 247:

A) The Actus Reus

The trier of fact must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, viewed objectively, the accused was, in the words of the section, driving in a manner that was "dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle was being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place".

B) The Mens Rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused)

The trier of fact must also be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's objectively dangerous conduct was accompanied by the required mens rea. In making the objective assessment, the trier of fact should be satisfied on the basis of all the evidence, including evidence about the accused's actual state of mind, if any, that the conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused's circumstances. Moreover, if an explanation is offered by the accused, then in order to convict, the trier of fact must be satisfied that a reasonable person in similar circumstances ought to have been aware of the risk and of the danger involved in the conduct manifested by the accused.

[60] Chief Justice McLachlin concurring in the result, concluded the correct statement of the law as follows:

1) The actus reus requires a marked departure from the normal manner of driving.

2) The mens rea is generally inferred from the marked departure in the nature of driving. Based on the finding of a marked departure, it is inferred that the accused lacked the requisite mental state of care of a reasonable person.

3) While generally the mens rea is inferred from the act constituting a marked departure committed by the accused, the evidence in a particular case may negate or cast a reasonable doubt on this inference.

[61] Justice Fish, also concurring in the result, stated the test as follows:

The fault element, however, is not the marked departure from the norm of a reasonably prudent driver but the fact that a reasonably prudent driver in the accused’s circumstances would have been aware of the risk of that conduct, and if able to do so, would have acted to avert it. This requisite mental element may only be inferred where the impugned conduct represents a marked departure from the norm; it cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he or she operated the motor vehicle in a dangerous manner.

I think the appeal is valid based on the argument that travelling 140km/h in a 50km/h zone represents a marked departure from the normal manner of driving.

I'm willing to bet that the accused will be back in court shortly.

Somewhat related, dangerous driving causing death vs. manslaughter (It's a bit of a read)

Spoiler!