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.
