2. The officer served Gellhorn with an offence notice and a certificate of offence. Gellhorn had committed a set fine offence when she made a right turn at the intersection of Richmond Street and Bley Street, and she would have been fined $85 for disobeying the “no right-hand turn” sign, in accordance with Part I of the Provincial Offence Act. Part I …show more content…
Olivia Gellhorn was charged with an absolute liability offence based on the language that was used in the charging legislation. The offence was not mens rea because there was no language of a guilty intention. Mens rea offences are defined as offences where a person has willfully committed an act. Furthermore, Gellhorn did not commit a strict liability offence. Strict liability offences allow the accused to use negligence as a defence. There was no statutory defence for due diligence and there was no language of negligence or carelessness in section 182(2) of the Highway Traffic Act. The charging provision states that, “Every Driver shall obey the instructions or directions indicated on any sign erected” (s.182 (2) Highway Traffic Act) and therefore does not imply any defences of due diligence. The accused will also owe a duty of care, in strict liability offences. The charging provision was about road signs, so Gellhorn did not owe a duty of care. Finally, absolute liability offences do not have jail time as a penalty. The offence Gellhorn was charged with did not mention jail time as a