• 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. A prison sentence of up to six months is a possibility for a first time offender; a mandatory minimum prison sentence of at least 14 days is required for a second offence and a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days in jail is required for each subsequent offence. 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. vs. J.C. - Quesnel Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charge upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.C. - Surrey RCMP Investigation

Charge: Theft/Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this $400,000 fraud/theft from employer case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to reach a civil settlement with the complainant and was able to persuade police to not forward any criminal charges. No criminal conviction; no jail.

R. vs. K.C. - Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Fraud Under $5000; Possession of Stolen Property (from Employer).
Issue: Given our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the offence, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to refer our client to Restorative Justice and the Alternative Measures Program and to stay the criminal charges upon completion. No criminal record.

R. vs. McKenzie - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the assault charge and to make a joint submission for a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. H.V. - Vancouver Youth Justice Court

Charges: Assault (x2).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide additional information to police and Crown which resulted in Crown deciding to not approve any criminal charges.

R. vs. T.K. and H.B. - Surrey RCMP Investigation

Charges: Assault (x2).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide additional information to police and Crown which resulted in Crown deciding to not approve any criminal charges.

R. vs. M.M. - Courtenay Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault (police investigation).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade police that it was in the parties' best interest and not contrary to the public interest to resolve this matter through Restorative Justice. No charges were approved. no criminal record.

R. vs. A.V. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Fraud Under $5000 (police investigation).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to assist our client to make civil restitution and to persuade police to not recommend any criminal charges. No charge was approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.P - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Breach of Undertaking (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay all of the criminal charges and to allow our client to enter into a peace bond. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. F.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Dangerous Driving; Obstruct/Resist Arrest (Reduced to MVA charge).
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that our client had the necessary element of  intent for a criminal conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on a lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act of speeding relative to the road conditions. Our client was sentenced to a driving prohibition. No criminal record.

R. vs. E.Z. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a criminal conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown that there were flaws in the evidence and that a conviction was highly unlikely. No charges were approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.M.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether our client was acting to defend his spouse when he physically engaged with the complainant.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide further evidence to Crown counsel which persuaded Crown that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. Complete stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

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.