I had a look at the article, which omits to mention that the motorbike which collided with her car was going way too fast on that road. I got this from the petition page:
"During the trial, a provincial police officer testified that the motorcyclist, whose speed was estimated to be from 113 km/h to 129 km/h when he applied his brakes, collided with Czornobaj's car at between 105 km/h and 121 km/h.
The jury was told the speed was higher than the prescribed 90 km/h limit on the road. They were later instructed NOT TO consider this fact in their deliberation."
There has clearly been a legal error by the judge here. He should not have instructed the jury to ignore that important fact, for this reason: if the motorbike had been going much slower (in order to be within the speed limit), then accident might never have occurred at all. Indeed, my first thoughts on reading this post, before I read the details, were, "Why didn't the motorbike see the parked car? Was it going too fast?"
My initial suspicions were confirmed when I read the details. The driver of the motorbike, had he survived, would have been liable to prosecution for speeding at such velocity as to risk losing his licence (although that would depend on Canadian law - perhaps you know, Catherine?). The real situation becomes clear when you consider the question, "Had the motorbike not been greatly exceeding the speed limit, and had he paid due care and attention to the road ahead, would this accident have happened?" That is a question which the jury SHOULD have been allowed to consider.
I signed the petition, but I do not think it can legally be submitted until the actual sentence had been handed out. I hope that the judge will see common sense on this case and that sentence will be lenient (as it should be).
"During the trial, a provincial police officer testified that the motorcyclist, whose speed was estimated to be from 113 km/h to 129 km/h when he applied his brakes, collided with Czornobaj's car at between 105 km/h and 121 km/h.
The jury was told the speed was higher than the prescribed 90 km/h limit on the road. They were later instructed NOT TO consider this fact in their deliberation."
There has clearly been a legal error by the judge here. He should not have instructed the jury to ignore that important fact, for this reason: if the motorbike had been going much slower (in order to be within the speed limit), then accident might never have occurred at all. Indeed, my first thoughts on reading this post, before I read the details, were, "Why didn't the motorbike see the parked car? Was it going too fast?"
My initial suspicions were confirmed when I read the details. The driver of the motorbike, had he survived, would have been liable to prosecution for speeding at such velocity as to risk losing his licence (although that would depend on Canadian law - perhaps you know, Catherine?). The real situation becomes clear when you consider the question, "Had the motorbike not been greatly exceeding the speed limit, and had he paid due care and attention to the road ahead, would this accident have happened?" That is a question which the jury SHOULD have been allowed to consider.
I signed the petition, but I do not think it can legally be submitted until the actual sentence had been handed out. I hope that the judge will see common sense on this case and that sentence will be lenient (as it should be).
