BICC 111 Immigration and Refugee Law

The paper discusses the application of the Highway Traffic Act by using two cases-R. v. Sandhu, [2009] and R. v. Fanelli, [2003]. These are court cases that have been heard and determined before the court of law. The accused persons in these cases were accused of violating the Highway Traffic Act by failing to stop for a red light when they were driving at an intersection (R. v. Sandhu, 2009). The court ruled that the accused persons were liable of a criminal offence because they had breached the law.

Section I: Discussion

1. The offence was that the accused person failed to stop at the stop line while driving. The driver was driving the car even though the traffic light had indicated a red signal. This was a violation of the Highway Traffic Act section 144 (18) that stipulates that any driver who is coming close to the traffic light should stop until the light turns into green. However, the driver did not comply with this clause (Peterman, 2019). In this regard, he had engaged in act of criminality. Meaning, he had violated the law and should be tried before a court of law.
2. The wording of the offence is that the accused person did not stop the car when he reached the traffic light even when it had turned red contrary to section 144 (18) of the Highway Traffic Act which states that a driver should stop at the traffic light once it turns red and wait until it turns green when he/she is authorized to proceed. Red light must be resected because it means a full stop (Garnett, Stewart, Miller, Lim, Van Aarsen & Millard, 2017). However, in case this does not happen, the driver is liable for a criminal case which must be heard and determined before a court of law.
3. The offense is classified as a strict liability. That is because it is an action that is regarded as a criminal offence irrespective of the intension of the offender. The implication of this offence is that the suspect can be convicted even if he had no criminal intent or was not aware of the legal status of the action. It should, therefore, be the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove the burden of proof (Byon, Shalaby, Abdulhai, Cho, Yeo & El-Tantawy, 2019). The standard of proof is that the suspect, actually committed the offence and there is enough evidence to prove that. This implies that the suspect can be convicted if the prosecutor has adequate burden of proof. However, in case the prosecution fails to convince the court by providing enough reliable and valid evidence, the suspect might be acquitted of the charges that were leveled against him.
4.  The essential elements of the offence include the fact that the accused person violated the traffic light by failing to stop. The element of intent does not apply in this case. So, for the prosecution to convict the suspect, he should prove that the suspect committed the offence by failing to adhere to the signal given by the traffic light. The evidence should be adequate, valid, and admissible before the court of law (Intrater, 2017). It will mainly focus on the actual offence, but not the intension or the awareness of the suspect. Meanwhile, the suspect also has a right to defend himself by providing enough evidence to prove that he did not violate the law as alleged.
5.  All the persons who are convicted of violating the principles of section 144 (18) of the Highway Traffic Act are liable for a commensurate punishment. The law stipulates that such suspects should be punished by having 3 demerit points and the imposition of a fine ranging from $200 to $1,000. Additional fine might be imposed so as to cater for the court costs. These are punishments that must be given to a convict as long as the prosecutor succeeds in prosecuting the case.
6. It is appropriate for a suspect to be charged under Part I and Part II because they focus on the aspects of administration and permits. A suspect might get additional charges levelled against him if it is ascertained that he has also violated the conditions spelt out in Parts 1 and 2. This might happen is the driver does not have valid permits and licenses or violate any of their conditions, but still drives the car. This, therefore, means that these can be considered as additional charges.
7. The proper service of the offence is constituted by the decision of the suspect to engage in the violation of the law. The suspect must be personally liable for the offence because he is the one who committed it without the aid of any other person (Suchaa, Herleb & da Silvac, 2017). However, the court must give the suspect and the prosecution an opportunity to argue their case before making a final determination on whether the suspect is liable for the offence or not.
8. Yes, the offence not only attracts a fine, but also leads to the loss of points. As already highlighted, if the suspect is convicted of the offence, he is liable for the 3 demerit points. This is the punishment that has been established to be equivalent to and commensurate with the magnitude of the offence committed by the convict ( v. Fanelli, [2003]). It is the discretion of the court to determine the kind of punishment to give to an offender as long as it is commensurate with the kind of offence committed.
9. There is a related offence. The accused person can negotiate for a lighter or reduced charge. That is a right that is accorded to all the accused persons as long as they can be legible for it during the determination of the case. However, it might not be guaranteed to all the accused persons.
10. The defense is available because before determining the case, the court must give the accused person an opportunity to defend himself. The accused person can defend himself by denying all the charges levelled against him. The accused person can insist that he never proceeded once the red light was flashed. However, for this defense to be a success, the suspect must provide enough witnesses and evidence. The evidence can be a video or pictures.
11. Although the accused person has a right to bring evidence, the court can only accept admissible evidence. To be admissible, the evidence should be valid, have a probative value, is relevant, is reliable, and obtained legally by not violating the law. This means that the evidence should meet the minimum threshold that makes it acceptable by the court (Nayerahmadi & Ben-Ishai, 2019). It should, therefore, be the responsibility of the prosecution and the defense to ensure that the evidence meets these criteria for it to be admissible and used in court to convict or acquit the accused person.
12. The case can be addressed using a charter challenge. This can happen after the determination of the case. The accused is free to seek for charter challenge I case he is convinced that his charter rights have been violated as a result of a court decision. It, therefore, acts like an appeal that the accused person lodges after losing the case. However, for it to be a success, one must convince the court by adequately-proving that, indeed, the charter rights had been violated unjustly.

References

Ben-Ishai, S., & Nayerahmadi, A. (2019). Over-Indebted Criminals in Canada. Man. LJ, 42,

207.

Byon, Y. J., Shalaby, A., Abdulhai, B., Cho, C. S., Yeo, H., & El-Tantawy, S. (2019). Traffic

Condition Monitoring with SCAAT Kalman Filter-based Data Fusion in Toronto, Canada. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 23(2), 810-820.

Garnett, M., Stewart, T. C., Miller, M. R., Lim, R., Van Aarsen, K., & Millard, W. (2017). Did

amendments to the Ontario Highway Traffic Act in 2009-2010 affect the proportion of alcohol-related motor vehicle collisions seen at a Level I trauma centre over a 10-year period?. Canadian journal of emergency medicine, 19(2), 106-111.

Intrater, C. (2017). Bill 34: The Safer Roads Act (Drivers and Vehicles and Highway Traffic Act

Amended). Man. LJ, 40, 29.

Nayerahmadi, A., & Ben-Ishai, S. (2019). Over-Indebted Criminals in Canada. Manitoba Law

Journal, 42(4).

Peterman, D. R. (2019). Federal Highway Traffic Safety Policies: Impacts and Opportunities.

1. v. Sandhu, [2009]
2. v. Fanelli, [2003].

Trabucco, L. (2018). Lawyers' Monopoly: Think Again: The Reality of Non-Lawyer Legal

Service Provision in Canada. Can. B. Rev., 96, 460.

Suchaa, M., Herleb, M., & da Silvac, F. P. (2017). Driver Offender Courses in Selected

European Countries. Transactions on Transport Sciences, 8(2).

Looking for academic assignment samples online? Need professional paper writers to back you up with advanced resources and other addons? Here we are! MyAssignmenthelp.co.uk takes up the responsibility to provide you with the following backups every time, on the move. 

• Free samples 
• Signup bonus 
• Seasonal discounts 
• Free access to blogs & more 

So, now that you are aware of our potential and the numerous perks that we have got in store for you, take a smart call. Our assignment help services in the UK shall make sure to help you secure a straight A+ every semester.