R. v. Stewart (M.R.), (1993) 145 A.R. 37 (CA)

• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: September 07, 1993
• Citations: (1993), 145 A.R. 37 (CA)

R. v. Stewart (M.R.) (1993), 145 A.R. 37 (CA);

    55 W.A.C. 37

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Mark Richard Stewart (respondent)

(Appeal No. 12600)

Indexed As: R. v. Stewart (M.R.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Bracco, J.A., Holmes and

Veit, JJ.(ad hoc)

September 7, 1993.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of two counts of dangerous driving causing death and two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm. He was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment on each count (concurrent) plus a two year driving prohibition. The accused and the Crown both appealed against sentence.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Veit, J.(ad hoc), dissenting, allowed the Crown appeal and increased the sentence to two years' imprisonment on each count (concurrent). The court affirmed the two year driving prohibition. Veit, J.(ad hoc), would have increased the sentence to four years' impri­sonment.

Criminal Law - Topic 5865.1

Sentence - Dangerous driving causing death or bodily harm - The 18 year old accused motor vehicle driver drove 100-119 km/h in a 50 km/h zone - A collision in an intersection resulted in two deaths and two serious injuries - The accused failed to keep a proper look-out, failed to apply his brakes and had been driving recklessly for five blocks - Alcohol was not involved - The accused was convicted of two counts of dangerous driving causing death and two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm - Accused remorseful - Excellent family and employer support - The trial judge sentenced the accused to nine months' imprisonment on each count (concurrent) plus a two year driving pro­hibition - The Alberta Court of Appeal increased the sen­tence to two years' im­prisonment on each count (concurrent) and affirmed the driving prohibition.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Beneteau (1988), 8 M.V.R.(2d) 228 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Baddeley (1991), 113 A.R. 253; 29 M.V.R.(2d) 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Jacobs (1982), 39 A.R. 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Fotti (1980), 4 Man.R.(2d) 117; 8 M.V.R. 16 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Sweeney (J.R.) (1992), 7 B.C.A.C. 1; 15 W.A.C. 1; 11 C.R.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Hundal (S.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867; 149 N.R. 189; 22 B.C.A.C. 241; 38 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 34].

Counsel:

E. Wilson, Q.C., for the appellant;

L. Scott, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Bracco, J.A., Holmes and Veit, JJ.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On September 7, 1993, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Bracco, J.A. (Holmes, J.(ad hoc), con­curring) - see paragraphs 1 to 11;

Veit, J.(ad hoc), dissenting - see para­graphs 12 to 37.