3 Dead, 5 Injured

[JPA Cate]

Mike, about the "impaired" charges: does that mean they did tests on the driver and measured for intoxicants and blood levels?

In sentencing, how would the "impaired" affect jail time?

Thanks.

Ann

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Mike, about the "impaired" charges: does that mean they did tests on the driver and measured for intoxicants and blood levels?

In sentencing, how would the "impaired" affect jail time?

Thanks.

Ann

I really don't know Ann. I assume being found guilty of being intoxicated, in addition to some of the bodily harm/death charges, will carry a potentially higher maximum sentence.

As for the evidence the police have gathered, including any blood alcohol tests, that will all come out in the trial. Nothing I've read gives any information about this detail, but one assumes the Crown has evidence to support the charges. Whether it will pass the criminal benchmark, we shall have to see.

I'll keep checking every once in a while. If I see any updates, I'll post them.

[sandy stone]

In the legal system (at least here in the US) nothing is ever as straightforward as it seems. Recall the case back in 2006 on Clear Lake, California, when an off-duty sheriffs deputy ran a speedboat into the back of a sailboat at high speed at night, dismasting it and killing a passenger. Another passenger on the sailboat, who happened to be at the tiller, was charged with vehicular manslaughter and boating under the influence, because prosecutors alleged the sailboat's lights weren't on. The deputy was never charged.

[JPA Cate]

^^^Yes, the failure to attain justice in the Clear Lake case was tragic.

I hope the Canadians do better than we (I'm from CA) did.

And, thanks, Mike, for the updates and information.

Ann

[Mike OReilly]

There's been a few developments in the case:

#1. Thespeed-boat operator has finally been released on bail, but remains in 'house arrest' pending the trial, which is supposed to start on Jan. 13, 2025.

#2. Someone on the boat that was hit is also facing charges around failing to display proper lights, and not having enough lifejackets on board.

(From the Kingston Whig-Standard):
Man charged in Bobs Lake boat crash released on bail

The accused in a fatal boating collision on Bobs Lake earlier this year was released on bail Friday evening after spending a month in custody.
...
The two-surety release plan was approved just after 5 p.m., with his brother, Joseph Splinter, pledging $75,000, and his girlfriend, Sarah Hood, pledging $10,000. Matthew was also ordered to pledge $1,000 on his own behalf.

The conditions on his bail include house arrest, with the exception of leaving for medical reasons, meeting with legal counsel, or attending counselling of any kind, though the court did not order counselling.

AND

Second person charged in Bobs Lake boat crash

Dakota Fillion, who was on board the fishing boat when it was involved in a collision with Matthew Splinter’s speedboat on May 18, has been charged for allegedly failing to display the vessel’s lights and for not having enough lifejackets on board.

[TrentePieds]

Thanks, Mike, for bringing us a jour :-)

I would think that the accused, the speed boat operator, having been "retained in custody" for an entire month and the severity of the bail conditions, would indicate three things:

1: He is "known to the authorities"
2: He is considered "likely to re-offend"
3: He is considered likely to skive off

In summary: He is a known "rangi-tang". But had we not already concluded that from the press reports of this incident?

From the Kingston Whig-Standard - a well respected paper:

He was ordered not to have care or control of a conveyance – including vehicles, snowmobiles, or vessels of any kind – and given a non-communication order against 116 people.

The rest of the hearing was protected by a publication ban.


This implies that his being "known" is the result of at least one DUI conviction in the past, more likely in respect of a motor car than of a boat, and

That he has been a damn nuisance around Bob's Lake long enough to arouse the enmity of more than a hundred of the "locals", and that the Court feared that he, or one of the 116, would take the law into his own hands.

And what, prey, would impel the court to impose a publication ban on a mere bail hearing? Obviously there are more "juicy bits" to be revealed in the
fulness of time!

As for the "someone" on the tinny now charged with not showing proper lights: Quite! It is clearly necessary to avoid giving the impression that the law is playing favourites here. Every infraction has to be addressed. I predict that the "someone" will let off with rap on the knuckles.

TrentePieds

[Mike OReilly]

The bail requirements are onerous, and rather specific in certain ways, such as the non-communication order. Certainly implies that there's a lot more to this story, and not in a good way for the speed-boat operator.

Yes, not surprising to see the other boat operator charged as well. I'd be surprised if this person gets more than a small fine.

But we'll have to wait for the court to decide.

[JPA Cate]

Thanks for keeping us posted, Mike.

I guess the prosecuting attorney is withholding lab results from breathalyzing from the public, in order to not contaminate the jury pool.

Under Canadian law, can Matthew Splinter elect to go before a judge rather than undergo a jury trial?

Thanks for indulging my curiosity, too.

Ann

[TrentePieds]

This is a criminal case with the possible penalty ranging from a fine of $1,000.00 (if it is a simple first offence with mitigating circumstances) up to Life Imprisonment (in aggravated cases).

IMO this is - judging by the bail conditions - deemed to be an aggravated case, though we don't know just HOW aggravated. That determination will be made based on the evidence presented during the trial.

Under Canadian law an offence that MAY result in a jail term of more than five years MUST be heard by "judge and jury", so this is clearly a "judge and jury" job.

Long terms of imprisonment imposed for "causing death" are often served in the "Kingston Pen" not far from Bob's Lake. However, it is "Corrections Canada" policy - it is not law - that convicts serving long terms will be "corrected" a long way from home. I expect therefore that Splinter will wind up in "Kent Institution" just down the road from me.

TP

[CaptTom]

One lesson we can take from this already is to make sure your lights are working and up to the legal requirements.

I've heard so many people dismiss lighting as a trivial thing. They don't bother to set up the correct light configuration, or don't bother using approved fixtures, or stick any old LED bulb in a fixture designed (and certified) for only a specific incandescent bulb. I've also seen those attitudes here on this forum.

This case is a good example why you shouldn't do any of that. The authorities, and the opposing attorneys, can and will go after you for it, should there be any kind of incident.

[Mike OReilly]

Thanks for the details on our legal system TP. I didn't know those details.

Yes indeed Tom, proper navigation lights are important; not just because it avoids handing the legal beagles an excuse to pounce, but because it actually helps improve safety on the water.

Of course, the more important aspect of this case will likely revolve around actions taken by the speed boat operator. Lessons there will likely include issues around operating a boat safely at all times, and might also include things like not drinking and boating.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

.........

Under Canadian law an offence that MAY result in a jail term of more than five years MUST be heard by "judge and jury", so this is clearly a "judge and jury" job.......

This may have changed (or be in a process of change) if this page is anything to go by - not I am au fait with all the legal terms and expressions so I could be barking up the wrong tree.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/...20jury%20trial.

[TrentePieds]

You are getting into deep water here, Bluey :-)!

The argy-bargy that keeps legal beagles content - because they get paid - has to do with our Constitution. The greater the obfuscation, the greater the pay :-)! Daddy Trudeau had a bee in his bonnet about "patriating" the Westminster Statute (1931) modifying the status of the "dominions". We Canucks wound up buying a pig in a poke.

But we aren't permitted to discuss that 'ere, so let's do it elsewhere :-)!

TP

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Long terms of imprisonment imposed for "causing death" are often served in the "Kingston Pen" not far from Bob's Lake.

The Kingston Pen has been closed since 2013. It is now a very interesting prison museum.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

This is a criminal case with the possible penalty ranging from a fine of $1,000.00 (if it is a simple first offence with mitigating circumstances) up to Life Imprisonment (in aggravated cases)...

... Under Canadian law an offence that MAY result in a jail term of more than five years MUST be heard by "judge and jury", so this is clearly a "judge and jury" job.../

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section 11(f) – Trial by jury ➥ https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sj...ck/art11f.html

Provision

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right:

except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;

...

4. Waiver
(i) Accused not to be compelled to take advantage of right

Where a jury trial is not a benefit from the accused’s perspective, the accused may waive their right to a jury trial. An accused cannot be compelled to take advantage of a right intended for their benefit, notwithstanding that there may be a substantial public interest in a jury trial (Turpin, supra).
(ii) Does not yield a right to trial by judge alone

A waiver of the right to a jury trial in section 11(f) does not create a corresponding right to a trial by judge alone. When an accused person waives their section 11(f) Charter right to a jury trial, reliance on the Charter ceases and the provisions of the Criminal Code govern. There is nothing in section 11(f) to give an accused a constitutional right to elect a particular mode of trial or a constitutional right to be tried by judge alone. Criminal Code provisions mandating a jury trial in the case of certain indictable offences are therefore consistent with section 11(f) (Turpin, supra).