Skyway bridge crash: Judge cites charter, rules out breath tests

[GameBoy27]

You should stick to commenting on topics that you understand because you aren't interested in learning about the ones you don't. Anyone can have an opinion and debate about what the law should be or as to the moral aspects of the incident but not everyone is equipped to discuss what the law actually is.

I had dinner over the weekend with a friend who practices criminal law. He's certainly equipped to discuss what the law actually is. I asked him what he thought about the judge's ruling in this case. Interestingly enough, he agreed with everything I've said. The judge had no choice but to rule the evidence inadmissible because the cops screwed up and therefore there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on the impaired charges.

And if I'm not mistaken, oagre who's also a lawyer also agreed with what I said.

^^^^^ What the man said. The judge made a fairly commonsense ruling after the cops screwed up so badly that they invalidated their evidence with poor procedures. That's all.

 

[Bud Plug]

I had dinner over the weekend with a friend who practices criminal law. He's certainly equipped to discuss what the law actually is. I asked him what he thought about the judge's ruling in this case. Interestingly enough, he agreed with everything I've said. The judge had no choice but to rule the evidence inadmissible because the cops screwed up and therefore there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on the impaired charges.

And if I'm not mistaken, oagre who's also a lawyer also agreed with what I said.

Go back and ask your lawyer friend whether, exactly as I've said, illegally obtained evidence can be admitted by the court if to do so does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. When he tells you yes, then you'll at least be on the right page, but a long way from a legal education.

 

[GameBoy27]

Go back and ask your lawyer friend whether, exactly as I've said, illegally obtained evidence can be admitted by the court if to do so does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. When he tells you yes, then you'll at least be on the right page, but a long way from a legal education.

The question is not whether illegally obtained evidence can be admitted by the court. Hypothetically speaking, yes but that is not what happened in this case.

 

[Bud Plug]

The question is not whether illegally obtained evidence can be admitted by the court. Hypothetically speaking, yes but that is not what happened in this case.

I can tell by the way you've framed your post that you've now gone back to your friend or some other resource that you trust and confirmed that what I told you is correct.

Unfortunately, either out of pride or a continued lack of understanding, your are not correctly applying what you've learned.

The discussion of this case in this thread is not to determine what the judge's ruling was. His ruling was to exclude the evidence. No one is arguing otherwise. The discussion is about why he excluded it, and whether he gave the matter proper legal consideration. In order to exclude it, once he determined that it had been illegally obtained, he had to consider how it would impact upon the administration of justice to admit it into evidence. I have yet to see a discussion of his reasons in this respect. If he failed to consider the issue at all, then he made a clear error of law. If he considered the issue, and found in favour of excluding the evidence, then it still might be worth considering his reasoning to see if it is persuasive. The reasons he might possibly have on the facts of this case do not seem intuitive to me.

One thing for sure, the finding that the evidence was illegally obtained does not end the analysis, or the legal test for admissibility would not be what it is.