R. v. Williams (J.R.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.076

• Judge: Michalyshyn, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 04, 2016
• Citations: [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.076;2016 ABQB 327

R. v. Williams (J.R.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.076

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.076

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Jeremy Ronald Williams (respondent)

(150640324S1; 2016 ABQB 327)

Indexed As: R. v. Williams (J.R.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Michalyshyn, J.

June 15, 2016.

Summary:

Williams was detained in an alleyway for impaired operation of a motor vehicle. The investigating officer twice directed Williams to turn off his motor vehicle. Williams put his vehicle in gear and drove away at a high rate of speed. The officer took up pursuit for a period of six minutes during which she observed Williams to be driving erratically, at times accelerating to 80-100 kph in 50-70 kph zones. Early in the pursuit the officer activated her emergency lights, then shut them off to avoid a chase scenario. Williams drove to a private roadway leading to his family home. There he exited his vehicle and was immediately placed under arrest. He told the officer that he had intended to drive to his residence to bid his mother farewell as he anticipated a long period of detention. Williams was charged that he "did operate a motor vehicle while being pursued by a peace officer operating a motor vehicle, and did, without lawful excuse and in order to evade the peace officer, fail to stop as soon as was reasonable in the circumstances".

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported at [2015] A.R. TBEd. NO.033, acquitted Williams. The trial judge found that the Crown failed to prove that Williams had the necessary specific intent to evade police. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and entered a conviction. The trial judge erred in law in concluding that the mens rea in failing to stop in order to evade the peace officer required proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a specific intent. A general intent alone was required. The court stated that "the mens rea is established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to evade; there is no need to prove anything further – outside of the 'reasonable excuse' element – no need to prove or inquire into an accused's motive or purpose or subjective reasons for manifestly intending not to stop as soon as was reasonable in the circumstances in the face of a peace officer's direction to do so. As to the meaning of 'evade', the court in Gunn at para 10 equated it straightforwardly to an 'attempt to elude or get away from'. Again, the whys and the wherefores behind the intentional evasion are irrelevant, as is whether the evasion was meant only to be temporary (as can perhaps be inferred on the facts of Mr. Williams' case), except again arguably as it relates to the element of a reasonable excuse".

Criminal Law - Topic 33

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Crimes of specific intent v. crimes of general or basic intent - See paragraphs 1 to 22.

Criminal Law - Topic 1406

Motor vehicles - Flight to evade - Elements of - See paragraphs 1 to 22.

Criminal Law - Topic 1407

Motor vehicles - Flight to evade - What constitutes - See paragraphs 1 to 22.

Counsel:

Anthony Oliver (Alberta Justice), for the Crown;

Jeremy Williams, the accused, appeared on his own behalf.

This appeal was heard on January 4, 2016, before Michalyshyn, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of St. Paul, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on June 15, 2016.