You are here: / / Driving While Prohibited
  • Vancouver at night

Driving While Prohibited

The Charge

British Columbia drivers can become prohibited drivers if, as part of a sentence to a Criminal Code or Motor Vehicle Act offence, a judge imposes a period of prohibition. Likewise, a driver can become prohibited if they blow a “warn” or a “fail” as the result of an Immediate Roadside Prohibition investigation. Furthermore, a driver can be prohibited by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles when they accumulate a bad driving record, including offences that carry demerit points, and they are served with a Notice of Intent to Prohibit.

Driving while prohibited is a serious matter under both the Criminal Code and the Motor Vehicle Act. Under either statute, a first time offender faces a mandatory 12-month driving prohibition and a substantial fine of $500 – $2,000. When prosecuted by indictment, the maximum sentence may be 10 years jail. If prosecuted summarily, the maximum sentence may be two years less a day. In order to obtain a guilty verdict for driving while prohibited, the Crown must prove (a) that the driver was, in fact, prohibited by the courts or the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and that (b) the driver had knowledge that they were prohibited.

The Investigation

The Automated Licence Plate Recognition (ALRP) System is a licence plate recognition system employed by BC police agencies that allows vehicles observed by police cameras to have their licence plate read and recorded. The goal is to reduce motor vehicle violations, in particular those related to unlicensed, uninsured and prohibited drivers. Police will use this technology, or at times, will simply detain and check a driver to see if they are properly licensed. Upon pulling over a vehicle which police suspect is being driven by a prohibited driver, the officer will attempt to illicit an incriminating admission by the driver in which they acknowledge that they are prohibited. It is useful to know that a driver, though obligated to produce a valid driver’s licence and to identify themselves to police, has no obligation to engage in a conversation regarding any knowledge of a driving prohibition.

Recent Successes

R. v. M.F. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Health insurance fraud investigation.
Issue: Given our client's civil settlement of the alleged false insurance claims. whether there was any public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to negotiate an appropriate civil settlement and repayment to the employer. No criminal prosecution.

R. v. V.H. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether or not it was contrary to the public interest for our client to be sentenced to a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through a course of rehabilitation. The Court granted our client the discharge and placed her on probation. No record of conviction.

R. v. J.M. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charge: Health insurance fraud investigation.
Issue: Given our client's civil settlement of the alleged false insurance claims. whether there was any public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate an appropriate civil settlement and repayment to the employer. No criminal prosecution.

R. v. K.D. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief Under $5000 (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given our client's background and rehabilitative efforts, whether it was in the oublic interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persude the criminal charge upon our client entering into a 12 month peace bond. No criminal record.

R. v. N.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Theft under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Given our client's background and remorse, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to admit our client into the Alternative Measures program. Upon completion, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal conviction.

R. v. N.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Under $5,000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Given our client's background, was it in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program and, upon our client's completion of the program, Crown enteres a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. C.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Fraud (in the range of $50,000).
Issue: Based on information Mr. Gauthier was able to provide to the civil investigators about our client's personal circumstances, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to settle the matter civilly on our client's behalf. No charges were recommended. No criminal record.

R. v. B.X. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether the complainant was a credible and reliable witness.
Result:  Upon hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on our client's behalf at the conclusion of the trial, the Court found our client not guilty on both counts. Acquittal. No criminal record.

R. v. A.L. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investigation by providing information to police on our client's behalf. Ultimately, Crown counsel decided to not approve any criminal charge. No jail; no criminal record.

R. v. A.Z. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given information we provided to Crown counsel regarding our client's background, the circumstances of the incident and the complainant's wishes, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings, bringing the case to an end.  No criminal record.

R. v. I.R. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual assault, assault x 2
Issues: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances, and whether our client should be excused from having to register as a sex offender.
Result: Upon hearing Mr. Johnston’s submissions regarding our client’s personal circumstances, rehabilitative progress, and the unusual nature of the offences, the Court imposed a sentence of probation, rather than the conditional sentence the Crown had sought. For the same reasons, the Court also agreed to excuse our client from the usual requirement of having to register as a sex offender.

R. v. R.A.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Robbery, uttering threats, possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose
Issues: Whether there was a reasonable chance our client would be convicted at trial, and whether there was public interest in continuing to prosecute our client.
Result: Given Mr. Johnston’s representations on behalf of our client and the unusual circumstances of the offence, the Crown agreed there would be difficulty establishing our client was the one who committed the alleged offences, and that it was not in the public interest to continue prosecuting our client. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.  
View All

The Defence

While it is not possible to go “behind” the driving prohibition by arguing that the court, or the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles should not have prohibited the driver to start with, a defence to prohibited driving is that the driver had no knowledge of the prohibition having been imposed. Significantly, the Crown has the burden of proving that the accused knew they were the subject of a driving prohibition. This can be problematic for the Crown when, for example, they are trying to prove knowledge by the fact the Superintendent mailed a Notice of Intent to Prohibit to the accused. As experienced defence lawyers, we can present arguments that challenge the presumption that the accused was ever aware of the prohibition. For example, just because a letter was mailed, it does not follow that the letter was actually received or read by the accused. Likewise, it may be difficult for an officer who issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition to prove that he actually served notice of the prohibition on the accused. In rare cases, it is possible to advocate the defence of “necessity” in prohibited driving cases. Where, for example, a prohibited driver chooses to drive in order to save a life, the court ought to find the driver not guilty.

Driving while prohibited charges are an area in which we have had great success in being able to negotiate satisfactory resolutions for our clients. By presenting Crown counsel with a full background of our client’s circumstances, and reasons for driving, we have been able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser, related offence of driving without holding a valid driver’s licence, under s. 24 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The advantage of this offence is that it does not require any mandatory driving prohibition whatsoever.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.

Connect