Dec
4
2009
BC motorcyclists organise rally for Orion Hutchinson
Author: Jesse LobdellOn October 25th, 2008, Orion Hutchinson was killed when his motorcycle was struck by a driver who later blew over the legal limit. One would expect that driver to be immediately charged with impaired and dangerous driving causing death, but instead, it took the Delta Police over 7 months to recommend charges and another 6 months for the Criminal Justice Branch to make a decision.
On Tuesday, December 1st, the Criminal Justice Branch ignored the recommendations of the Delta Police and chose not to charge the driver, RCMP Corporal Benjamin “Monty” Robinson, with impaired and dangerous driving causing death. Without explanation, the CJB chose only to charge Cpl Robinson with obstruction. The public has been advised that the exceptional delay and lack of charges has nothing to do with the fact that the driver responsible for the death of Orion Hutchinson is a police officer. This is Cpl Robinson’s second pass, as he also avoided trial for his involvement in the death of Robert Dziekanski.
The case is yet another example of a police officer involved in a death not facing charges related to the death. It should be noted that never, in the history of B.C. has a police officer faced a criminal charge as a result of killing someone while on duty. It appears that the rule may hold true for killing someone while off duty as well. In far too many cases, including Dziekanski, Boyd, Bush, St. Arnaud and countless others the CJB has acted as judge and jury, deciding on which evidence would likely be preferred by a judge and invariably preferring the police version of events. If the CJB found Cpl Robinson guilty and pronounced judgment without trial, there would be an uproar. But refusing to try a police officer for manslaughter has not resulted in a commensurate public outcry.
BC’s motorcycle community is looking to change that. You can join them in a rally at 12:00 noon on December 8th at the Surrey Provincial Courthouse. Everyone is encouraged to attend and motorcyclist are encouraged to wear their jackets. Further details are below from a Facebook posting.
Also, check out the article in the Province and Gary Mason’s article in the Globe and Mail.
Due to our failing system, a young motorcyclist by the name of Orion Hutchinson has lost his life by a suspected drunk driver and the person responsible for this tragedy, RCMP officer Cpl Benjamin “Monty” Robinson is potentially getting away with it.
Let’s show our support,
December 8 2009 @ Noon in the main lobby
Surrey Provincial Court
14340 57th Avenue
Surrey, BC
V3X 1B2
This is a peaceful Rally,
Please wear your Motorcycle Jackets to show unity
Claude Desrosiers
Tags: RCMP
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Had the CJB charged Robinson with the impaired causing death could it be they would have given him a greater chance of walking free? Impaired driving has a very low conviction rate. The defence Robinson opened for himself (claiming he needed a drink to calm his nerves) is oft used in impaired accident cases with recurring success, one that falls under the “two liars defence” category that so often shows up at trial. Without driving evidence prior to the accident and perhaps with contibuting circumstances on the part of the victim (speed?) it is difficult to prove impaired driving. The after crash drinking gets rid of the breathalyser results. The simple fact of an accident does not support impaired. Also, courts have to deal with a tremendous amount of case law which may restrict how they chose to interpret Robinsdon’s action. With just the obstruction charge they have may a broader interpretation available on what constitutes the offence.
If Robinson is charged with impaired and obstruction and is found not guilty of the impaired it would seem likely that it would be difficult to find him guilty of obstruction.
Even if Robinson were convictied of Impaired I think there still needs to be further proof that it was a cause of the death, again perhaps something in the accident investigation may make that uncertain; remembering the Robinson has a right to all benefits of doubt as anyone else.
Lastly, Police Officers do not lose their careers for impaired driving, they do for obstruction of justice and perhaps that is the ultimate goal. Obstruction in such a serious case should carry a significant penalty
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:58 pm
I can’t really disagree with what you said. But I think that the CJB could have been more transparent in why the charges were not laid. You may have it right, but we’ll never know.
I wonder about “Failure to stop at the scene of an accident”. I managed to find an explanation here: http://www.lawyerahead.ca/research/not-remaining-at-the-scene-of-an-accident_41.html. I’ve cut and pasted it below.
Section 252 of the Criminal Code that deals with the offense of “Failure to stop at the scene of an accident” states that “Every person commits an offense who has the care, charge or control of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft that is involved in an accident with another person, a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, or in the case of a vehicle, cattle in the charge of another person, and with intent to escape civil or criminal liability fails to stop the vehicle, vessel or, if possible, the aircraft, give his or her name and address and, where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance, offer assistance.” And if a person involved in an accident fails to stop the vehicle, vessel or, if possible, the aircraft are found to be guilty and are held liable for punishment.
The punishment for the crime could be life if:
• The person flees from the scene of the accident being aware
of the fact that the person involved in the accident is dead or
• The person knows that bodily harm has been caused to
another person involved in an accident or
• The person is reckless as to whether the death of the other
person results from that bodily harm, and the death of that
other person so results.
Whenever the responsible driver fails to remain on the scene after an accident, it complicates the insurance claim and creates additional problems for everyone involved. The provisions of this law requires that the driver to ensure that accident victims can contact them at a later stage.
The Criminal Code states that any driver involved in an accident with another vehicle must:
• Stop his vehicle
• Provide assistance to anyone requiring assistance and
• Leave his name and address
The Criminal Code does not compel the person involved in an accident to remain at the scene of an accident, once the above three requirements have been met. It does not become a criminal offence unless the driver leaving the scene of the accident did so to avoid civil or criminal liability. Thus, for example, if a driver leaves the scene of an accident because he is being threatened by the other driver this would constitute a defense to the charge.
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I agree on the transparency issues. With the fail to remain at the accident issue I believe Cpl Robinson left his name and address with a witness then left the scene “to remove his children from the trauma” and returned shortly after. If others were present and Robinson could reasonably claim he observed all that could be done was being done - I note his first aid certificate was never renewed after lapsing three years prior- he could have that covered as well. The law appears to require an offer of assistance only, not specific actions, and that may be covered by a call to emergency services; which had been done. It would be interesting to see if someone with a histroy in emergency services could be deemed as required to actually provide physical assistance within demonstrable skills gained through experience.