R. v. A.H.K.

(Alberta P.C. - DUI/Breach of Recognizance) – AHK was charged with impaired driving, over 80 and a breach of recognizance.  Trial began and after evidence from the primary witness (a police officer) -- who was extensively cross examined on both trial proper issues and on breaches under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The cross-examination went well.  As a result of flaws in the evidence exposed during cross-examination, the Crown resolved the case by way of a guilty plea to a non-Criminal Code offence and the breach.  The non-Criminal Code offence was a Traffic Safety violation. The reason this deal was made mid-trial was because the Prosecutor recognized that there was a legitimate prospect that the accused would completely defend the impaired driving allegations. The Breach of Recognizance was never really contested at the trial. The problem with impaired driving and its related offences is that that if convicted, the accused will receive a mandatory minimum punishment that includes a criminal record. A breach of recognizance, however, is an offence for which it possible to argue for a ""conditional discharge". A conditional discharge is a sentence that does not result in a permanent criminal record. As long as the offender completes the terms of the conditional discharge, the discharge will became absolute and the accused will not suffer the long term consequence of a criminal record. In AHK's case, the Crown not only agreed to withdraw the impaired driving allegations in exchange for a traffic safety plea, it jointly submitted that a conditional discharge was appropriate for the breach.   AHK's Alberta criminal lawyer - David Chow -- successfully prevented his client from the consequence of a criminal record.  Criminal record avoidance is the first priority for any accused.