2 total
Speeding conviction upheld; urgent need to urinate does not establish the defence of necessity.
The appellant was convicted of speeding 78 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.
He appealed, arguing the trial justice lacked impartiality and erred in rejecting his defence of necessity based on a medical condition that caused an urgent need to urinate.
The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias.
The court held that the defence of necessity did not apply because the possibility of soiling oneself does not constitute imminent peril or danger, and the appellant had reasonable legal alternatives, such as stopping at a nearby gas station or wearing adult diapers.
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that a police officer's observation of a driver holding an object to his ear is sufficient to prove cell phone use while driving.
The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while using a handheld device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The trial judge found that the appellant held a cell phone in his hand while driving.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the officer's testimony lacked sufficient detail to establish that the object was a cell phone and that the verdict was unreasonable.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the officer's observations were sufficient to establish that the appellant was holding a cell phone and that the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence or apply an incorrect standard of proof.
