A man named Seyed Moshfeghi Zadeh was recently acquitted of dangerous driving charges in a tragic crash that resulted in the death of a Vancouver child. The crash took place on July 6, 2021, and claimed the life of 23-month-old Ocean, as well as causing serious injuries to her father. Zadeh pleaded not guilty and has maintained that the crash was a tragic accident. B.C. Provincial Court Judge Katherine ruled that while Zadeh’s momentary lapse of attention had led to a tragic outcome, it did not constitute a criminal act. Prosecutors focused on the fact that Zadeh entered an intersection with a red light, but did not introduce evidence of his past driving infractions dating back to 2014.
Legal expert Kyla Lee explained that courts typically cannot consider an accused person’s past offenses during a trial, as it may prejudice the fairness of the proceedings. She noted that while there are rare exceptions where past behavior can be introduced as evidence, the bar for admissibility is high. In Zadeh’s case, his driving history could have been brought up during sentencing if he had been convicted. Lee mentioned that while it may be hard for the average person to understand, the law focuses on proving a person’s actions constitute an offense regardless of the tragic outcome. She suggested the Crown would have had a better chance of proving a case of driving without due care and attention under the Motor Vehicle Act rather than dangerous driving charges under the Criminal Code.
In a different case, Ken Cheung was initially acquitted of dangerous driving causing death after striking and killing Dr. Alhonsus Hui in Vancouver in 2015 while driving at 140 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. The trial judge ruled Cheung’s speeding was a “momentary lapse,” but the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal, sentencing him to 18 months in jail. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the ruling, emphasizing that a driver’s intention can amount to dangerous driving. The B.C. Prosecution Service is currently reviewing Zadeh’s case to determine if there are grounds for appeal.
Lee mentioned that Zadeh’s past driving history was not introduced in court, as prosecutors typically cannot bring up an accused person’s past offenses during trial. She explained that introducing such evidence could prejudice the fairness of the proceedings, but in certain rare cases, it is admissible if there is a pattern of the same type of conduct happening over a prolonged period. The legal bar for admissibility in such cases is high, and courts tend to shy away from endorsing evidence of past conduct. Lee emphasized that the law maintains a high standard for what constitutes a criminal offense due to the significant consequences attached to it.
Despite the tragic outcomes of the crash that killed 23-month-old Ocean, Zadeh was acquitted of dangerous driving charges, as the Crown did not have enough evidence to prove his actions amounted to a “marked departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver.” Lee noted that while it may be difficult for people to accept that such driving conduct does not constitute a criminal offense, the law focuses on proving whether a person’s actions meet the criteria of an offense, regardless of the outcome. She suggested that the Crown would have had a better chance of proving a case of driving without due care and attention under the Motor Vehicle Act. The maximum penalty for the Motor Vehicle Act offense would have been a $2,000 fine and a potentially indefinite driving suspension.
Join Our Newsletter
Get the latest crime news and updates directly to your inbox.
11 Comments
Shouldnt the focus be on preventing such tragedies rather than just establishing blame?
Shouldnt the focus be on preventing future tragedies rather than just assigning blame?
Do you think the legal system needs to toughen penalties for dangerous driving?
Absolutely, the legal system should definitely toughen penalties for dangerous driving. Too many lives are lost due to reckless behavior on the road. Harsher consequences might make people think twice before putting others at risk. Safety should always be the top priority.
Do you think the Crown will be able to prove dangerous driving?
Do you think the Crowns case is strong enough for a conviction?
Do you think the legal system needs to tighten laws on dangerous driving?
Do you think the Crown will have enough evidence to establish dangerous driving?
Do you think the Crown will successfully establish dangerous driving in this case?
I highly doubt it. The evidence seems pretty weak so far. The Crown better step up their game if they want to make that charge stick. But hey, who knows what surprises the trial might bring. Lets wait and see.
Do you think the Crown has enough evidence to convict the driver?