R. v. Binder (M.F.), 2015 NSSC 23

Judge:Edwards, J.
Court:Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Case Date:January 12, 2015
Jurisdiction:Nova Scotia
Citations:2015 NSSC 23;(2015), 355 N.S.R.(2d) 116 (SC)
 
FREE EXCERPT

R. v. Binder (M.F.) (2015), 355 N.S.R.(2d) 116 (SC);

    1123 A.P.R. 116

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.047

Mark Frederick Binder (applicant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(Syd. No. 434715; 2015 NSSC 23)

Indexed As: R. v. Binder (M.F.)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Edwards, J.

January 20, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while having a blood-alcohol content exceeding the legal limit. A driving prohibition was imposed. The accused appealed his conviction and applied for a stay of the driving prohibition pending the appeal.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 5799.2

Punishments (sentence) - Prohibition orders - Stay of - The accused was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while having a blood-alcohol content exceeding the legal limit - A driving prohibition was imposed - The accused appealed his conviction and applied for a stay of the driving prohibition pending the appeal - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the application - The accused failed to discharge the burden of satisfying the court that the appeal was not frivolous, that continuation of the driving prohibition was not necessary in the public interest, and that a stay would not detrimentally affect public confidence in the effective enforcement and administration of the criminal law - The accused made only a short written submission that he "requires his license for work purposes pending the hearing of the appeal" - There was no affidavit identifying portions of the trial judge's decision relating to the specific grounds of appeal - There was no explanation as to why continuation of the driving prohibition was not necessary in the public interest and why granting a stay would not detrimentally affect public confidence - The court stated that "While there is a low threshold to show that the appeal is not frivolous, most cases will require something more than unqualified reference to the grounds set out in the Notice of Appeal".

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Murphy (K.M.) (1994), 134 N.S.R.(2d) 393; 383 A.P.R. 393 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. MacCulloch (P.B.) (2010), 289 N.S.R.(2d) 341; 916 A.P.R. 341; 2010 NSCA 31, dist. [para. 4].

Counsel:

William P. Burchell, for the applicant;

Mark Gouthro, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 12, 2015, at Sydney, N.S., before Edwards, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on January 20, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP