R. v. Humphries

R. v. Humphries

The accused was acquitted because the court accepted his evidence that he was unaware of the revocation, that revocation under the Maintenance Enforcement Act is discretionary and requires notice, and on the balance of probabilities he had taken reasonable steps (due diligence) to ensure his licence was in good standing, defeating the strict liability offence under s.287(2) MVA.

Citation
2013 NSPC 31
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Paul Patrick Humphries
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Driving While License Revoked / Trial/decision
Outcome
Acquitted
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Due Diligence Defence, License Revocation, Maintenance Enforcement
Source Language
English

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Paul Patrick Humphries

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Driving While License Revoked / Trial/decision

  1. 1 Whether the accused knew his driver’s licence had been revoked
  2. 2 Whether the accused established the due diligence defence to a strict liability offence under s.287(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act
  3. 3 Whether revocation under the Maintenance Enforcement Act s.30 occurs automatically or requires notice to the payor

Ratio Decidendi

The accused was acquitted because the court accepted his evidence that he was unaware of the revocation, that revocation under the Maintenance Enforcement Act is discretionary and requires notice, and on the balance of probabilities he had taken reasonable steps (due diligence) to ensure his licence was in good standing, defeating the strict liability offence under s.287(2) MVA.

Court Disposition

Acquitted

Orders

  • Accused Paul Patrick Humphries acquitted