Intent to Drive & DUI Defence
As DUI lawyers, many times we’ll often focus on one key issue that courts must consider in impaired driving and care and control cases: the intent of the driver.
In some cases, the question is not just whether a person was in or near a vehicle, but whether they intended to operate it. In this case, the judge found that the driver had no intent to drive and had established a clear alternate plan to get home. As a result, the court determined that the essential element of intent was missing, and the driver was found not guilty of both charges.
Judge ruled no intent to drive – Driver had established “an alternate plan to get home”.
Facts of the Case
The accused was charged with care or control while impaired after police found him sitting in the driver’s seat of his vehicle while intoxicated.
The vehicle was stationary at the time, but the keys were accessible and the accused was in a position where he could have easily started the car. Police relied on the fact that he was in the driver’s seat and in a condition consistent with impairment to form the belief that there was a risk the vehicle could be put in motion.
Based on these observations, they concluded that he had care and control of the vehicle and placed him under arrest.
He was taken to the police station, where he provided two breath samples registering 300 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.
These readings were more than three times the legal limit of 80 milligrams. As a result, the police charged the accused with care and control while impaired and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 milligrams.
Defence Case Review
Mr. M was devastated when he first came to our office. He believed he had no choice but to plead guilty and was preparing to attend court to get the matter over with.
Like many people facing criminal charges, he assumed the evidence against him was overwhelming and that there was no realistic defence available.
During our initial meeting, we carefully reviewed the facts and discussed possible defence strategies.
As we went through the events step by step, Mr. M remembered that he had sent a text message to his girlfriend shortly before he was found in his vehicle. He was able to show us the message, which read, “come get me from Moxies, I’m smashed.”
At the time, he had been so intoxicated that he completely forgot sending it. However, this message became a critical piece of evidence.
The case proceeded to trial. The Crown Attorney relied on the fact that Mr. M was found in the driver’s seat while impaired, arguing that he had care and control of the vehicle and posed a risk of putting it in motion. However, the defence focused on the issue of intent.
Through testimony and evidence, including the text message, we demonstrated that Mr. M had already made a clear decision not to drive. Instead, he had arranged for someone else to pick him up.
Mr. M testified in court and explained his actions that night. He told the judge that he knew he was too impaired to drive and had taken steps to avoid doing so. Although he may not have fully understood the legal risk of sitting in the driver’s seat, his intention was clear.
He was waiting for a ride and had no plan to operate the vehicle.
Judges Decision – Case Dismissed
The judge carefully reviewed all of the evidence presented at trial, including the text message and Mr. M’s testimony.
Particular attention was given to whether the accused intended to operate the vehicle, which is a key issue in care and control cases. The court accepted that Mr. M had taken a clear step to avoid driving by contacting his girlfriend to pick him up. The text message supported his explanation and provided objective evidence that he had formed an alternate plan to get home.
The judge also considered Mr. M’s condition and the surrounding circumstances.
While it was acknowledged that he was impaired and had positioned himself in the driver’s seat, the court found that this alone was not enough to establish intent.
The judge noted that Mr. M may have misunderstood the legal risk of being in the vehicle while intoxicated. However, the critical issue was whether there was a realistic intention to put the vehicle in motion.
After considering all of the facts, the court concluded that the Crown Attorney had not proven the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence raised a reasonable doubt about whether Mr. M intended to drive.
As a result, the judge found him not guilty of both charges. Case Dismissed.
Experienced Criminal Defence
Charitsis Law, DUI Driving Defence Team
Experience counts in criminal defence. Knowing the court system, the Crown Attorney’s, police, and judges can have a serious impact on how your case proceeds. The reputation and experience of your criminal defence lawyer matters and can influence how your case is handled from the start.
The courts recognize criminal lawyers who prepare thoroughly, challenge the evidence, and present strong and effective defence arguments. At Charitsis Law, our team of DUI lawyers and criminal defence professionals focuses on reviewing the evidence, guiding you through the court process, and building a clear defence strategy tailored to your case.
Call 647-930-0200 to speak with a criminal defence lawyer at Charitsis Law, and lets just have a conversation about what happened and how we can help you.
Our legal team has years of experience helping individuals facing criminal charges across Ontario. We work together to identify weaknesses in the Crown’s case and take the steps needed to have charges withdrawn or dismissed whenever possible.
