A high profile impaired driving trial in Saskatoon was back in court on Thursday.
It was an emotional and tense day at court for the trial of Taylor Kennedy, who is charged with THC impaired driving in the 2021 death of 9-year-old Baileigh Maurice.
The trial is currently in voir dire, a sort of trial within a trial, where the court examines various issues outside of the actual trial.
At discussion on Thursday was a claim from Kennedy’s lawyers that a number of her Charter rights were violated at the scene of the collision.
The defense argued Kennedy had reasonable understanding to believe she was detained at the scene and therefore the actions of police officers were under scrutiny for possible Charter violations.
They argue Kennedy was not properly read her rights, a blood test was not properly conducted, there was an “unreasonable” delay in providing a drug screening device, and she was not properly advised of her options for legal counsel.
Meanwhile, the Crown argued Kennedy was never detained when many of these issues brought forward by defense occurred and should not be subject to Charter rights scrutiny.
They argued detentions require a significant “deprivation of liberty” and in their opinion this did not occur, also arguing investigation of a matter does not equate detainment.
Crown lawyers would then assert Kennedy was compelled by law to stay at the scene by the Motor Vehicle Collision Act and not because she was detained. They also argue, by her own admission, that Kennedy stayed at the scene because she was concerned for Baileigh.
Prosecutors also brought up that many of the defense’s arguments are not that police officers did anything unlawful, only that they could have done things “faster” or even better.
“The law does not expect perfection,” the Crown lawyer told the court.
Delay application and another constitutional challenge
The court also spent a portion of the day discussing a delay application brought forward by the defense.
The application claims Kennedy has faced an unreasonable delay in her trial.
While the court didn’t hear any official submissions on the matter, Crown lawyers did make comment that any delay in the proceedings were due to the many applications the defense have put forward.
The trial was initially put into voir dire earlier this year because the defense brought forward concerns about compelled statements. By law, compelled statements are not allowed in trial. However, a judge would rule the statements Kennedy made to police officers about using THC and mushrooms the day before the collision were not compelled and would be allowed when the trial resumed.
Another matter arose during court as the defense also brought forward another constitutional challenge based on a recent Supreme Court decision from December 2023. It pertains to Section 24(2) of the Charter which says evidence obtained through a violation of charter rights should be excluded as long as certain criteria are met.
There was discussion on whether this matter should be delayed until after a decision is rendered on the claims of charter rights violations.
The Crown, who had received the decision Thursday morning, made comment that the defense had plenty of time to bring this decision to the courts attention before Thursday.
The Crown also raised concern that a constitutional lawyer representing the Attorney General should be present to hear any constitutional challenge.
It was unclear on Thursday exactly what the constitutional challenge would be based on that decision. However, the court adjourned the matter to allow for a constitutional lawyer to be present for the submissions.
Those matters will be argued at a future date.
Emotions run high
Emotions and tension did run high at times throughout the day.
Often people began crying during the proceedings. Some emotional outbursts were so disruptive they would cause a brief pause in the proceedings.
The court was again filled with many supporters of Baileigh Maurice’s family who were wearing blue shirts saying “justice for Baileigh Maurice.”
While the matter will return to court next Tuesday to determine a date for the arguments on the delay application and the constitutional challenge, no word was given on when the judge would render a decision on the Charter Rights issues that were argued on Thursday.