decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Canada - Supreme Court's Common Sense Cans Conviction | 555 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Canada - Supreme Court's Common Sense Cans Conviction
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 05:32 PM EDT
Some background: the defendant called a cab when he left a bar, clearly
intoxicated. It was a cold night. He got into the car and started it to get some
heat. He was found, sleeping, intoxicated, in the car, with the engine running.
Normally, that fits clearly within 'having care and control'.
The judge read in a 'realistic possibility of danger' aspect and acquitted. The
Court of Appeal overturned, saying that was not a proper reading. The SCC
allowed the appeal.
The majority adopted and approved of the 'realistic probability' interpretation.
The dissent pointed out that this was directly contradictory to many prior
decisions.

The majority decision ALSO noted that the Crown can only appeal from an acquital
*on a point of law*. The judge's determination of the FACTS is not something
that can be appealed. In this case, the judge found as a fact that the defendant
did not enter the car, with the intention of taking care and control for the
purpose of driving.
Therefore the appeal had to be dismissed for lack of standing to appeal.

Where that actually leaves things is obscure. Because if the grounds for
allowing the appeal are that it was improperly brought, then everything about
intention in the decision and dissent are just obiter dicta....

Or are they.
PS. I don't do crim law, but I did read the decision.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )