R. v. MacKay

R. v. MacKay

Court excluded the statements attributed to the accused by Constable Travis as not proved voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt; statements given at the shoreline were admissible but statements obtained under statutory compulsion engaged s.7 and were excluded under s.24(2); Crown failed to prove impairment or criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt; court found accused was the operator and convicted him of dangerous operation of a vessel causing bodily harm (Criminal Code s.249(3)) and dangerous operation causing death (s.249(4)).

Citation
2008 NSPC 8
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant/accused: Daniel W. MacKay
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial and Voir Dire Decision
Outcome
Mixed: convictions on included offences of dangerous operation causing bodily harm and causing death; acquittals on impairment and criminal negligence counts; exclusion of specified statements and evidence.
Legal Topics
Confessions and Voluntariness, Statutory Compulsion/use Immunity, Dangerous Operation of a Vessel, Criminal Negligence, Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law (charter) Maritime Law Confessions and Voluntariness Statutory Compulsion/use Immunity Dangerous Operation of a Vessel Criminal Negligence Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecution

Daniel W. MacKay

Defendant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial and Voir Dire Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements attributed to the accused to Constable Travis were voluntary and admissible
  2. 2 Whether statements given to police were compelled by Small Vessel Regulations/Port Authority practices and engaged s.7 Charter protection
  3. 3 Whether accused was the operator of the vessel at time of collision

Ratio Decidendi

Court excluded the statements attributed to the accused by Constable Travis as not proved voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt; statements given at the shoreline were admissible but statements obtained under statutory compulsion engaged s.7 and were excluded under s.24(2); Crown failed to prove impairment or criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt; court found accused was the operator and convicted him of dangerous operation of a vessel causing bodily harm (Criminal Code s.249(3)) and dangerous operation causing death (s.249(4)).

Court Disposition

Mixed: convictions on included offences of dangerous operation causing bodily harm and causing death; acquittals on impairment and criminal negligence counts; exclusion of specified statements and evidence.

Orders

  • Conviction entered: Dangerous operation of a vessel causing bodily harm (Criminal Code s.249(3)) — Rhonda Roach.
  • Conviction entered: Dangerous operation of a vessel causing death (Criminal Code s.249(4)) — Kenneth Juteau.