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.

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.

Recent Successes

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

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this "road rage" case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client's personal circumstances and the circumstances of the incident which resulted in Crown staying the charge after our client completed Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Failing to Remain at the Scene of an Accident.
Issue: Whether our client's Charter rights were breached due to unreasonable delay.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately caused Crown  to proceed against our client as the owner and not the driver of the vehicle. He plead to the lesser charge of Failing to Remain under the Motor Vehicle Act and received a fine, but no driving prohibition. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.X. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Driving while prohibited (MVA).
Issue: Whether the delay in approving the charge was relevant to our client's right to a speedy trial.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a valid driver's licence. Rather than a 12 month driving prohibition and 10 penalty points, our client was sentenced to a 3 month driving prohibition and received only 3 penalty points.

R. vs. J.H. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charge: Failing to stop at an accident resulting in bodily harm.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence, our client's background and his extreme remorse, whether a jail sentence was warranted.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was ble to direct our client through a course of psychological counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to agree to a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a 12 month conditional sentence. No jail.

R. vs. B.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Impaired Driving.
Issue: Whether Crown counsel could prove the impaired driving offence in light of evidence brought forward by Mr. Gauthier which suggested that our client did not voluntarily consume the drug that may have contributed to the the manner of his driving and the ensuing accident.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of dangerous operation and, rather than being convicted of impaired driving, our client was granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

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

Charges: Impaired Driving Causing Death; Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: What would be the appropriate sentence, considering the aggravating (high speed, MVA record  & high BAC) and the mitigating factors (genuine remorse).
Result: Rather than a sentence in the range of 8 years, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court, to impose a sentence of 40 months jail, and a 7 year driving prohibiton. 

R. vs. R.V. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Given our client's circumstances and the circumstances in which he drove, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines presented our client's background information to Crown and was able to persuade Crown to procceed on the lesser charge of Driving without a valid drivers' licence. Rather than a 12 month minimum driving prohibition, our client was sentenced to a nighttime driving prohibition from 10 pm to 6 am.

R. vs. C. E. – Courtenay Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prohibited driving charge which carries a mandatory minimum one year driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Johnston was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with the lesser offence of  driving without a valid licence. Our client was sentenced to a driving prohibition of only one month.

R.M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police report established, on balance, that our client had refused to provide a breath sample during a roadside impaired driving investigation.
Result: The adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submissions that our client's evidence was more reliable than the evidence set out in the Police Report to the Superintendent. The 90 day driving prohibition was overturned and our client was ruled eligible to resume driving.

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