Failure to Remain Lawyer Toronto
Introduction
Have you or someone you know been charged with the criminal offence of failure to remain? This article provides a brief summary of some of the key points regarding how these cases work, potential punishments, potential defences, amongst other useful tips. This article is not a substitution for retaining an expert Failure to Remain Lawyer in Toronto, however.
You will often read or see in the news cases where people fled the scene of an accident, sometimes seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian. The police are often hunting for the suspect, ready to lay a number of charges, one being Failure to Remain.
Failure to remain at the scene of an accident is a criminal offence under section 320.16 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This offence applies to individuals operating a conveyance (such as a motor vehicle) who, knowing or being reckless as to whether their conveyance was involved in an accident, fail to stop, provide their name and address, and offer assistance if someone is injured or appears to require help. The law imposes serious penalties depending on the circumstances of the offence, including whether bodily harm or death resulted from the accident.
Elements of the Offence
The elements of the offence (or the aspects of the case that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doube) under s. 320.16(1) include:
- the operation of a conveyance;
- knowledge or recklessness regarding involvement in an accident;
- and failure to stop and provide required information or assistance without reasonable excuse.
Potential Punishments
The punishment for this offence varies based on the severity of the outcome. For a basic failure to stop under s. 320.16(1), the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment if prosecuted by indictment, or a summary conviction penalty of up to 2 years less a day. Where bodily harm results, the maximum penalty increases to 14 years’ imprisonment, with minimum penalties including a $1,000 fine for a first offence, 30 days’ imprisonment for a second offence, and 120 days’ imprisonment for subsequent offences. If the accident results in death, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment, with the same minimum penalties applying.
Case law provides further context for sentencing considerations. For example, aggravating circumstances, such as the severity of harm caused or the offender’s prior convictions, can influence the court’s decision.
Potential Defences to Failure to Remain in Toronto
The potential defences to the offence of failure to remain at the scene of an accident under section 320.16 of the Criminal Code include the following.
Firstly, the defence of “reasonable excuse” is explicitly provided for under section 320.16(1). This defence allows an accused to argue that their failure to stop, provide their name and address, or offer assistance was justified under the circumstances. For example, if the accused feared for their safety or was unaware of the accident, these factors could constitute a reasonable excuse. The term “reasonable excuse” is not defined in the Criminal Code, but it is interpreted based on the specific facts of each case and the accused’s actions at the time of the incident.
Secondly, the defence of lack of knowledge or recklessness regarding the accident may be raised. Section 320.16 requires that the accused either knows or is reckless as to whether their conveyance was involved in an accident. If the accused can demonstrate that they were unaware of the accident or that their actions were not reckless, this could negate the mens rea element of the offence. For instance, in R. v. King, [1962] S.C.J. No. 60, the court considered whether the accused’s ignorance of the extent of damage impacted the voluntariness of their actions, although the actus reus was still found to be present.
Thirdly, common law defences such as necessity or duress may apply. These defences are recognized under section 8(3) of the Criminal Code and could be invoked if the accused acted under immediate threat or coercion, or if their actions were necessary to avoid a greater harm. For example, fleeing the scene due to imminent danger from another party could potentially be argued as necessity.
Finally, favourable post-accident conduct, such as returning to the scene or taking steps to admit responsibility, may be considered a mitigating factor during sentencing rather than a full defence. Courts have acknowledged such conduct in cases like Ramdass and O’Neill, where the sincerity of the accused’s remorse and subsequent actions were taken into account.
Andrew Captan – Failure to Remain Lawyer Toronto
Contact an experienced Failure to Remain Lawyer in Toronto today for a free case review at (647) 878 – 6355 or e-mail andrew@captanlaw.com for more info.
