R. v. Lapp

R. v. Lapp

Court accepted credible evidence that a sudden, unforeseeable mechanical brake failure caused the injuries and that the accused could not have known or guarded against it, creating reasonable doubt on dangerous driving counts; separately, the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for a breath demand because objective indicia (smell of liquor and admission of one beer only) were insufficient, resulting in acquittal on refusal and impaired driving counts.

Citation
2003 BCSC 1368
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Shawn Kenneth Lapp
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial — Oral Judgment (acquittal)
Outcome
Acquittal on all counts
Legal Topics
Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm, Refusal to Provide Breath Sample, Impaired Driving, Modified Objective Test for Mens Rea, Reasonable and Probable Grounds for Breath Demand
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Traffic Offences Evidence and Procedure Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm Refusal to Provide Breath Sample Impaired Driving Modified Objective Test for Mens Rea Reasonable and Probable Grounds for Breath Demand

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Shawn Kenneth Lapp

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial — Oral Judgment (acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sudden and unexpected mechanical brake failure raised a reasonable doubt defeating dangerous driving charges
  2. 2 Whether the peace officer had reasonable and probable grounds to demand a breath sample
  3. 3 Application of the modified objective test for dangerous driving (R. v. Hundal) and the test for grounds for breath demand (R. v. Daggit)

Ratio Decidendi

Court accepted credible evidence that a sudden, unforeseeable mechanical brake failure caused the injuries and that the accused could not have known or guarded against it, creating reasonable doubt on dangerous driving counts; separately, the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for a breath demand because objective indicia (smell of liquor and admission of one beer only) were insufficient, resulting in acquittal on refusal and impaired driving counts.

Court Disposition

Acquittal on all counts

Orders

  • Count 1 (dangerous driving causing bodily harm - Amanda Keith): Not guilty
  • Count 2 (dangerous driving causing bodily harm - Francis Morgan): Not guilty