CASE LAW - R v Hecimovic
This decision as reported in the press last week made me scratch my head. We have a driver who was doing at least 20 km/h over the speed limit, went straight through from a right turn only lane against a red light, hit a concrete median, lost control and collided with another vehicle, killing both occupants. She had driven through the intersection twice before and had ridden through it a number of times as a passenger in her boyfriend's car. There is some indication that her emotional state affected her ability to drive. Madame Justice Gropper decided that this was not dangerous driving and acquitted Hecimovic.
Even after considering the judgment, this still seems like dangerous driving to me and it must have seemed so to Crown as well or they would not have prosecuted the charge. Is this another disconnect between what the average person would consider dangerous in the real world and the courts fail to acknowledge?