R. v. MacDonald

R. v. MacDonald

The application for a curative discharge was denied because the accused failed to satisfy the burden to show that curative treatment would not be contrary to the public interest in light of his history and unreliable evidentiary support for treatment efficacy; mandatory minimums applied to the over-.08 and refusal offences as prior convictions were properly proved and notices of greater penalty were served, and after applying gap, jump and totality principles the appropriate global custodial sentence is 360 days with consecutive driving prohibitions, victim surcharges and an 18-month probation on release.

Citation
2015 NSPC 56
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Allister Curtis MacDonald
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving and Related Offences / Sentencing Decision
Outcome
Accused convicted and sentenced
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Refusal of Roadside Screening, Driving While Prohibited, Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Curative Discharge, Conditional Sentence Eligibility, Probation, Forfeiture, Ignition Interlock
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Traffic and Motor Vehicle Offences Impaired Driving Refusal of Roadside Screening Driving While Prohibited Mandatory Minimum Sentences Curative Discharge +4 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Allister Curtis MacDonald

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving and Related Offences / Sentencing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a curative discharge under s.255(5) should be granted
  2. 2 Applicability of prior convictions to trigger mandatory minimums under s.255(4) and s.255(1)(a)(iii)
  3. 3 Appropriate individual and global sentence taking into account gap, jump and totality principles

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a curative discharge was denied because the accused failed to satisfy the burden to show that curative treatment would not be contrary to the public interest in light of his history and unreliable evidentiary support for treatment efficacy; mandatory minimums applied to the over-.08 and refusal offences as prior convictions were properly proved and notices of greater penalty were served, and after applying gap, jump and totality principles the appropriate global custodial sentence is 360 days with consecutive driving prohibitions, victim surcharges and an 18-month probation on release.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Case 2685337 (para. 253(1)(b)): 120 days custody
  • Case 2685337 (sub-s. 259(4)): 60 days custody consecutive to above