Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Provincial Driving Offences (13:VI)"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Line 73: Line 73:
electronic device as use of an electronic device.
electronic device as use of an electronic device.


In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc101/2018bcpc101.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20bainbridge&autocompletePos=3 ''R v Baindridge'' 2018, BCPC 101] the accused was found guilty of the offence for simply holding the device in his hand while driving. The court held that any number of functions of the accused’s phone '''could''' have been used in the position in which he held his phone.  In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc745/2017bcsc745.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20jahani&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Jahani'', 2017 BCSC 745], the accused was found guilty of the offence for plugging his phone into the cord to charge the phone.
In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc101/2018bcpc101.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20bainbridge&autocompletePos=3 ''R v Bainbridge'' 2018, BCPC 101] the accused was found guilty of the offence for simply holding the device in his hand while driving. The court held that any number of functions of the accused’s phone '''could''' have been used in the position in which he held his phone.  In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc745/2017bcsc745.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20jahani&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Jahani'', 2017 BCSC 745], the accused was found guilty of the offence for plugging his phone into the cord to charge the phone.


In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc183/2018bcpc183.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20tannhaus&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Tannhauser'', 2018 BCPC 183], the accused was acquitted of the offence because his cell was programmed with a software that immobilized the phone when a vehicle that is in motion. **This case was appealed and BCCA ordered a new trial. The judge in the BCCA trial said that even though the cell phone could not immediately be used due to the software, it was still an electronic device held in a position in which it may be used, which is illegal [http://canlii.ca/t/j7zgh ''R. v. Tannhauser'', 2020 BCCA 155].   
In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc183/2018bcpc183.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20tannhaus&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Tannhauser'', 2018 BCPC 183], the accused was acquitted of the offence because his cell was programmed with a software that immobilized the phone when a vehicle that is in motion. **This case was appealed and BCCA ordered a new trial. The judge in the BCCA trial said that even though the cell phone could not immediately be used due to the software, it was still an electronic device held in a position in which it may be used, which is illegal [http://canlii.ca/t/j7zgh ''R. v. Tannhauser'', 2020 BCCA 155].   
2,734

edits