You are here: / / Driving While Prohibited
  • Vancouver at night

Driving While Prohibited

The Charge

British Columbia drivers can become prohibited drivers if, as part of a sentence to a Criminal Code or Motor Vehicle Act offence, a judge imposes a period of prohibition. Likewise, a driver can become prohibited if they blow a “warn” or a “fail” as the result of an Immediate Roadside Prohibition investigation. Furthermore, a driver can be prohibited by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles when they accumulate a bad driving record, including offences that carry demerit points, and they are served with a Notice of Intent to Prohibit.

Driving while prohibited is a serious matter under both the Criminal Code and the Motor Vehicle Act. Under either statute, a first time offender faces a mandatory 12-month driving prohibition and a substantial fine of $500 – $2,000. When prosecuted by indictment, the maximum sentence may be 10 years jail. If prosecuted summarily, the maximum sentence may be two years less a day. In order to obtain a guilty verdict for driving while prohibited, the Crown must prove (a) that the driver was, in fact, prohibited by the courts or the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and that (b) the driver had knowledge that they were prohibited.

The Investigation

The Automated Licence Plate Recognition (ALRP) System is a licence plate recognition system employed by BC police agencies that allows vehicles observed by police cameras to have their licence plate read and recorded. The goal is to reduce motor vehicle violations, in particular those related to unlicensed, uninsured and prohibited drivers. Police will use this technology, or at times, will simply detain and check a driver to see if they are properly licensed. Upon pulling over a vehicle which police suspect is being driven by a prohibited driver, the officer will attempt to illicit an incriminating admission by the driver in which they acknowledge that they are prohibited. It is useful to know that a driver, though obligated to produce a valid driver’s licence and to identify themselves to police, has no obligation to engage in a conversation regarding any knowledge of a driving prohibition.

Recent Successes

R. v. T.C. – Fraud Over $5000 Investigation

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Given the civil settlement of this $245,000 misappropriation from employer case, whether there was any interest in pursuing  a criminal investigation and prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to negotiate a civil settlement and obtained a Final Release from the complainant. No criminal investigation occurred. No risk of jail or criminal prosecution.

R. v. Q.D.T. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to continue the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures program. Upon completion of Alternative Measures, Crown enteresd a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. A.M. – Possession of Stolen Property Investigation – Squamish RCMP

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property (motor vehicles).
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence that our client was aware that the vehicles that he possessed had been obtained by the commission of crimes.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through the police investigation. Ultimately, based on insufficient evidence, police declined to forward charges against our client. No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. v. S.R. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Insurance fraud over $5000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client’s rehabilitation and repayment of disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the Insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges were forwarded. No criminal record.

R. v. A.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Break and Enter.
Issue: Given our client's mental health issues, whether a conditional discharge was an appropriate sentence for this drug store break in.
Result: Mr. Gauthier  provided Crown counsel with information about our client which persuaded Crown to make a joint submission for a conditional discharge. No jail. No criminal conviction.

R. v. M.G. – Nanaimo Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault; Theft of Motor Vehicle x2; Break & Enter.
Issue: Whether or not it was in the public interest to proceed with the trial considering the reluctance oft the Crown's central witness and rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately led to a stay of proceedings on all counts. No criminal record.

R. v. S.G. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Obstruct peace officer.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to continue with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Given our client's remorse and rehabilitation, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to divert our client into the Alternative Measures Program and to withdraw the charge. No criminal record.  

R. vs. A.B. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge:  Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Given our client's rehabilitation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges were forwarded. No criminal record.

R. v. S.M. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Uttering Threats (domestic).
Issue: Given the circumstances of the incident and our client's background, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Considering our client's unblemished history awaiting trial,  Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to withdraw the charge. No criminal record.

R. v. M.L. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault; Breach of undertaking.
Issue: Whether the complaint met the Crown's charge approval standard. Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the breach charge.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown on our client's behalf which, ultimately, resulted in Crown not approving any charge on the sexual assault complaint and agreeing to a 12 month peace bond on the breach charge. No jail. No criminal record.

R. v. A.L. – Creston Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of a prohibited weapon for a dangerous purpose.
Issue: Given our client's background and the context of the offence, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel that culminated in Crown's agreement to refer our client into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. v. S.S.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide relevant information to Crown on our client's behalf which resulted in Crown entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
View All

The Defence

While it is not possible to go “behind” the driving prohibition by arguing that the court, or the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles should not have prohibited the driver to start with, a defence to prohibited driving is that the driver had no knowledge of the prohibition having been imposed. Significantly, the Crown has the burden of proving that the accused knew they were the subject of a driving prohibition. This can be problematic for the Crown when, for example, they are trying to prove knowledge by the fact the Superintendent mailed a Notice of Intent to Prohibit to the accused. As experienced defence lawyers, we can present arguments that challenge the presumption that the accused was ever aware of the prohibition. For example, just because a letter was mailed, it does not follow that the letter was actually received or read by the accused. Likewise, it may be difficult for an officer who issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition to prove that he actually served notice of the prohibition on the accused. In rare cases, it is possible to advocate the defence of “necessity” in prohibited driving cases. Where, for example, a prohibited driver chooses to drive in order to save a life, the court ought to find the driver not guilty.

Driving while prohibited charges are an area in which we have had great success in being able to negotiate satisfactory resolutions for our clients. By presenting Crown counsel with a full background of our client’s circumstances, and reasons for driving, we have been able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser, related offence of driving without holding a valid driver’s licence, under s. 24 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The advantage of this offence is that it does not require any mandatory driving prohibition whatsoever.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.

Connect