R. v. Adamson

R. v. Adamson

Vehicle was offence-related and the defendant did not establish that forfeiture would be disproportionate under s.490.41(3), therefore forfeiture ordered; a conditional sentence would not properly acknowledge the harm or meet denunciation so custody was required; five months' imprisonment concurrent on both counts...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 BCSC 745
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Regina; Defendant/accused: Sue Louise Adamson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm; Failure to Provide Breath Sample / Sentencing
Outcome
Convicted on counts 3 and 5; sentenced to 5 months imprisonment concurrent on both counts; vehicle forfeited; DNA order declined; driving prohibition for a further 15 months; victim surcharge imposed; remaining counts stayed.
Legal Topics
Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm, Failure to Provide Breath Sample, Forfeiture of Offence Related Property, Conditional Sentence, DNA Order, Driving Prohibition, Victim Surcharge
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Sentencing Forfeiture Road Traffic Offences Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm Failure to Provide Breath Sample Forfeiture of Offence Related Property Conditional Sentence +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown/prosecution

Sue Louise Adamson

Defendant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm; Failure to Provide Breath Sample / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentence for dangerous driving causing bodily harm
  2. 2 Whether conditional sentence appropriate
  3. 3 Application of s.490.1(1) forfeiture and disproportionality under s.490.41(3)

Ratio Decidendi

Vehicle was offence-related and the defendant did not establish that forfeiture would be disproportionate under s.490.41(3), therefore forfeiture ordered; a conditional sentence would not properly acknowledge the harm or meet denunciation so custody was required; five months' imprisonment concurrent on both counts is fit; DNA order declined under s.487.051; driving prohibition ordered for a further 15 months; victim surcharge and stay of remaining counts ordered.

Court Disposition

Convicted on counts 3 and 5; sentenced to 5 months imprisonment concurrent on both counts; vehicle forfeited; DNA order declined; driving prohibition for a further 15 months; victim surcharge imposed; remaining counts stayed.

Orders

  • 5 months imprisonment concurrent on counts 3 and 5
  • Driving prohibition for 15 months (further)