Traffic court can be confusing and overwhelming. Discussions with officers in the hallway outside court can persuade self-represented accused person who believe they have a defence to plead guilty. They are told that their defence may be taken into account on sentencing. For most people, they think this will help with the points. But the power of the court on a guilty plea in traffic court can be limited.
The recent British Columbia Supreme Court case of R. v. Hessabi, 2024 BCSC 1572, sheds light on some of these complexities in traffic court proceedings, particularly when a defendant attempts to argue that their actions were justified by necessity.
This case, which involved an appeal of a guilty plea to a charge of changing lanes unsafely, demonstrates the importance of understanding legal defences and the court process.
In the original traffic court hearing, Mr. Hessabi pleaded guilty to changing lanes unsafely following discussions with a constable in the hallway outside court. The officer explained the observations he made leading up to the unsafe lane change in his sentencing submissions.
After hearing the officer, the judicial justice in that hearing raised the possibility of a defence of necessity. For the defence of necessity to apply, a person’s actions must have been truly involuntary. That is, they must have been at imminent risk of death or serious injury, such as a collision, there must have been no reasonable legal alternative, and the harm they avoided must be greater than the harm caused by the unsafe lane change.
After becoming concerned about this, the court questioned Mr. Hessabi at length about the circumstances, specifically pointing out that, for a defence of necessity to succeed, the harm must be both imminent and virtually inevitable.
After further explanation from Mr. Hessabi, the judicial justice accepted that the defence of necessity likely would not apply. The court accepted his guilty plea, while also reducing the fine from $109 to $75 to take into account the stressful circumstances.
Mr. Hessabi then appealed the guilty plea.
On appeal, he contended that the evidence did not support the finding that a necessity defence would fail. He claimed that the court improperly accepted the officer’s evidence about the speed of the cars.
Secondly, he argued that the officer had unfairly persuaded him to plead guilty, based on an understanding that the circumstances would be taken into account.
Finally, he claimed there was a miscarriage of justice, for the reasons outlined above, and further argued about the relevance of certain law relied on by the Crown.
Justice Baker of the Supreme Court dismissed all of Mr. Hessabi’s arguments. The Court found that the judicial justice in traffic court had indeed considered all the evidence from both the officer and Mr. Hessabi when deciding whether to accept the guilty plea. The court had properly considered whether there was a valid defence that would call the plea into question. Justice Baker also determined that the circumstances of the event were fully discussed and taken into account when the fine was reduced.
Why This Case Matters
This case highlights several important things to consider about traffic court.
First, a guilty plea in traffic court is a serious matter. It is an admission of guilt that a court may uphold even if the circumstances might suggest a defence. This underscores one of the problems with being self-represented; without the benefit of good legal advice, the discussions with the officer in the hallways may lead to a decision that is detrimental to potential defences.
Secondly, it highlights the strenuousness of the defence of necessity when used for traffic tickets. The defence of necessity requires that the harm be both imminent and virtually inevitable. Feeling nervous or being in a difficult situation is not enough to successfully claim the necessity defence.
Finally, it’s important to understand that appeals are not opportunities to retry the case or present new facts but rather to argue that the lower court made an error of law. Which is why you need to be able to have legal advice and information that can help you get the most favourable record of the proceedings, should an appeal be necessary.
Advice for Traffic Court
Based on the Hessabi case, here is some important advice for individuals facing traffic court:
Before entering any plea, it is important to fully understand the charge against you and the potential consequences. That is why seeking legal advice is critical for a traffic court case. If you believe you have a defence, such as necessity, seek legal advice to assess its likelihood of success.
Ensure that your explanations are clear, focused on the specific legal elements.
Keep detailed notes of all interactions, from the initial incident to any discussions with law enforcement.
If you are uncertain about your options, consider consulting with a lawyer who is experienced in traffic court and driving law before making any statements to authorities or the court. It is important not to rely on any ‘understanding’ you might have with a police officer or person in authority. Ensure any such discussions are fully documented, as the court may not take your subjective ‘understanding’ into account if it is not clear on the record or in notes.
R. v. Hessabi is an important reminder that traffic court is a formal legal process. Understanding the rules, possible defences, and the importance of the record are all necessary elements of a successful defence.
