FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 983 times | Saved to 290 briefcases
R v Hundal [1993] 1 SCR 867

Facts:

Streets were wet. H could not stop at light. Truck hit someone and killed them

Issue(s):

What is the MR for s.249 which is reckless driving?

Ratio:

Use a modified objective test for driving offences (such as s.249)
**An objective test must be applied to the offence of dangerous driving, but it will remain open to the accused to raise a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person would not have been aware of the risks in the accused’s conduct

Analysis:

Reasons why it is ok to use a negligence standard in driving offences
**The licensing requirement
**Automatic and Reflexive Nature of Driving
**Driving is one of the activities that generates the most deaths

From Hundal:
1. Trier of fact must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, viewed objectively, the accused was driving in a manner that was dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances (actus reus)
2. Trier of fact should be satisfied that the conduct amounted to a marked departure form the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused’s circumstances (mens rea)
**a. If an explanation is offered by the accused, 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.
**b. Proof of subjective mens rea will suffice but is not essential

Comments:

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.