Early in 2007, David Anber took this case on while he was still a student in Law School at the University of Ottawa. This ended up being Mr. Anber’s first criminal matter that proceeded to trial.
At an initial meeting, the client steadfastly told Mr. Anber that he had not been driving his vehicle.
The evidence was that the police had followed his vehicle to his store and, as they came around the corner saw the client getting out of the driver’s side.
The client’s son had testified at court that he was the one who had taken the car without his father’s permission. He had brought the vehicle back to the store just in time as his father was locking up; he fled the scene. The client then walked up to the vehicle to ensure that it was locked before going home. As he approached the vehicle the police came around the corner and told him to get back in the vehicle; he was ultimately arrested in an intoxicated state.
At trial the issue was one of credibility. The officer’s testimony, although problematic and confusing in some places was generally accepted by the Judge. The prosecutor argued that the story put forward by the defence was fanciful and should not be believed.
In the end, the Judge agreed with Mr. Anber’s argument that at a minumum the accused’s testimony, along with his son’s testimony, should cause the court to have a reasonable doubt in his guilt.
Click here to see the decision