Part A: Understanding the Legislation
The act of careless driving is indeed a serious offence as stipulated by the Highway Traffic Act. The manner Section 130 in the law defines the offense of careless driving, the police officer may still be right to take the two months before proceeding with the court trial. In Canada, the only crimes that have a statute of subject limitations are summary conviction offenses, and careless driving happens to be one of them(Boyd, 2012). As opposed to indictable offenses, summary conviction charges such as careless driving should be laid in 6 months of the date the offence took place. The police officer laid the court proceedings after 2 months of the date the offence ensured, making his decision to still be within protocol. In the case where the 6 months period would have passed, the policer would have no longer be charge Stan with the offense.
Dangerous driving can also be regarded as a hybrid offence, and this usually gives the Crown Prosecutor a choice of charging one either summarily or through indictment (Buckler, 2008). As a result, if Stan would have been alleged to have committed a hybrid offence more than 6 months ago, the Crown would have still charged him through simply electing to proceed through the approach of indictment apart from having to charge one with a summary conviction offence. Also, as opposed to summary conviction offenses, indicatable offenses in Canada do not have any limitations statute. As a result, one can indeed be charged for an indictable criminal charge at any time, regardless of the period within which the offence was committed.
As a summary offense, the procedural stream the offence will fall under is that of the Magistrates court. The case will be heard without a jury, meaning the judge will get to decide on the Stan’s verdict. It also means that the judge will get to decide on whether the offender is innocent without a help of jurying(Boyd, 2012). One of reasons for the offence being in the stream of Magistrate Trials is that prior to the actual trial beginning; there is usually a pre-trial, where the prosecution gets to speak their subject evidence. Such is usually done as a way of resolving any of the legal issue the prosecution can have and as a way of dealing with them prior to the trial.
Another reason the offense belongs to the stream of the Magistrates Court includes the fact that crimes under the Summary Offenses Act may only be dealt with in the Local Court (for the adults) as well as in the Children’s Court (for those beneath under the age of 18). Summary offenses stand out as less serious compared to the indictable offenses and may still lead to the terms of imprisonment as well as the criminal convictions, ones that generally remain on the record of life of the offender (Farbiarz, 2016). In some situations, it can be possible for the Section 10 conditional or dismissal release order after being determined as guilty of the offence and this will mean that no criminal conviction has been recorded.
Additionally, careless driving offences under the Road Transport Act 2013 stand out as summary offences. These include crimes such as the one in subject, as well as drunk driving, not stopping after an accident, dangerous driving and speeding. Some of these offenses may be dealt with through some type of infringement notice, as opposed to the court of law (Winterdyk & Reichel, 2010). A majority of the driving offences may attract periods of license suspension and also fines and imprisonment periods.
With regards to the question as whether Stan pays some set fine as a way of resolving the matter from outside the courtroom, it will first be necessary to note that the penalty for careless driving can include dramatically rates of increased insurance and license suspensions for the novice drivers. As required by the Highway Traffic Act, the police in this case will be required to inform Stan of the hidden and long term penalties of the careless driving offence. This will include being liable fine of nothing less than $400 and not anything over $2000. Stan may also be liable for a loss of 6 demerit points, a mandatory suspension of his driving license, and a possible 6 months suspension for him(Koons-Witt, Sevigny, Burrow, & Hester, 2012). As the careless driving penalties prescribed by the law, in the case of not being convicted by the penalties, there may be additional penalties suffered. These include a 100% increase of his insurance in case he is convicted even for a month, staying on the driving record for at least 3 years, some possible loss in the employment for commercial drivers. The penalties that come with careless driving are usually severe, and apart from the high rates of the fines above, a conviction for the offense may impact Stan’s rights to drive as well as his insurance rates for at least 3 years.
More so, the police officer can claim Stan’s careless driving caused harm, as hot coffee spilled on him. Such can be considered as an accident caused by careless driving, and the penalty may be increased between $2000 and $50000 if the claim is considered credible enough. Also, where bodily death or injury has taken place, the prosecution nearly always considers the suspension of license and jail (Klamberg, 2017).
Part B: Sentencing Submissions
Public Prosecutor’s Sentencing Submission
- This written submission is respectfully submitted to assist the Court in sentencing the defendants
- I respectfully refer the Court to the time of the defendant’s arrest filed in connection to the sentencing, as this will be comprehensively setting forth the applicable sentencing ranges and rules; the rather relevant goals in sentencing, inclusive of the general and specific deterrence.
- Due to this Court’s rather vast experience of the jury and the knowledge of Canada, I am indeed confident that its judgment and instincts on the sentence of being imposed on such defendants being be sound(Hale, 2008). Additionally, it my respectable understanding that sentencing need to more the judges province than prosecutors, and also less than that, may, of the Independent Counsels.
- I will first be addresses the sentences that are to be imposed on the accused who have been convicted at the trial. Then, I will be addressing the sentence imposed on Mr. Barr, the ones pleaded guilty as well as testified as some kind prosecution witness pursuant to some plea agreement in Court evidence.
Suggestions with Respect to Sentences of Conner Barr and Quo Restaurant
- An necessary sentence includes one severe enough in accomplishing the legitimate purposes, goals, objectives of sentencing, like the general and specific deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation; but not more severe than the necessary in accomplishing them.
- A sentence in the imprisonment sufficient of punishing the defendants and tarring them as well as others similarly situated from involved in some way carried in the future can seem clearly be referred to in the case(FindLaw's team, 2019).
- Due to convicts Conner Barr being previously being cited many times for breaches of the municipal by-laws, as well as the bottles of alcohol being seized by the police that were established as having come from illegal purchase of the product, any imprisonment sentence, in being at all meaningful, may need to be imposed consecutively as opposed to concurrently(Koons-Witt, Sevigny, Burrow, & Hester, 2012).
- Additionally, due to both Mr. Barr and the restaurant already committed previous offense s apart from the ones they had already committed, the subject consecutive sentence of imprisonment imposed for the new offenses can need to be toward the high end of some sentencing range as a way of having any hope of accomplishing the sentences objective of specified deterrence, that is, in the discouragement of them from attempting of committing some similar offense in some future(Klamberg, 2017). That is, of the discouraging them from having to commit similar offenses in some future. That some sentence can also redound to some benefits of the objective of general deterrence, which is, discouraging other people in the community from having to try to commit some similar offenses.
- The defendant has been convicted on three counts, namely selling Unlawful purchase of liquor, contrary to s.27 of Liquor License Act of Ontario RSO 1990, selling liquor to intoxicated person, contrary to s.29, and selling liquor to person under 19 years old, contrary to ss.30(1) (2). Therefore, the defendant can be sentenced to a maximum sentence of the 7 years on every count(Klamberg, 2017). While its necessary that any sentence on such a new conviction be imposed consecutively to the sentences already being served, it can only be necessary to sentence Mr. Barr and the restaurant to consecutive sentences on every of the three counts if the Court was persuaded that a sentence of more than 7 years were necessary to accomplishing the legitimate goals of sentencing.
References
AG.gov. (2021). Statements of Compatibility. Retrieved Feb 11, 2021, from https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/statements-compatibility
Boyd, J. (2012). You think your client is going to lie on the stand—The classic dilemma of a criminal defense lawyer. Traffic Laws & Courts, 21(3).
Buckler, K. (2008). Minimizing White Race-Based Behavior and Neutralizing Oppression Discourse: An Interpretive Content Analysis of Crash (2005). Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 15(1).
Farbiarz, M. (2016). Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction. Michigan Law Review, 114(4), 507-559.
FindLaw's team. (2019, Nov 12). The Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Requirement and Warrantless Search. Retrieved Oct 1, 2020, from https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-fourth-amendment-reasonableness-requirement.html
Hale, C. (2008, Mrach 27). Does the evolution of international criminal ednd with the ICC? The Roaming ICC ": A Model International Criminal Court for State-Centric World of International Law. Retrieved from
Klamberg, L. B. (2017). The gatekeeper of the ICC: Prosecutorial strategies for selecting situations and cases at the International Criminal Court. Gorgetown Journal of International Law , 48, 639-739.
Koons-Witt, B. A., Sevigny, E. L., Burrow, J. D., & Hester, R. (2012). Gender and Sentencing Outcomes in South Carolina: Examining the Interactions With Race, Age, and Offense Type. Criminal Justice Policy Review, XX(X), 1-26.
McMartin v. The Queen, 1964 CanLII 43 (SCC), [1964] SCR 484, 28 (Supreme Court of Canada May 11, 1964).
Winterdyk, J., & Reichel, P. (2010, Jan). Introduction to Special Issue: Human Trafficking Issues. European Journal of Criminology, 7(5), 5-10.
The best thing about getting paper help from us is that you will get proofreading services by default. You don’t have to pay extra charges for the proofreading services if you seek assignment writing services from us. The proofreaders ensure that your paper is devoid of any mistakes. From the sentence structures and punctuation to relevance and context, our team of ghostwriters take care of everything. Expect nothing but higher grades when you opt for our assignment writing service. Do not hesitate to avail yourself of our essay writing service if essay writing isn’t your cup of tea. We have the best team to assist you.
