On the date of the alleged offence, Tom was subject to a 5-year driving prohibition when a police officer observed Tom driving on a country road heading into a small town. Tom was stopped by police and charged with driving while prohibited, contrary to s. 320.18 of the Criminal Code. According to Tom, he resorted to driving into town because he ran out of food. He resorted to driving into town because he needed to get groceries. He lived alone on a small farm, about 2 kilometres outside of town. He has lived there for 20 years. Throughout that period of time, he has worked in the mining industry.

As a result, he has a number of work-related injuries. He has a bad back, a deteriorating hip, and he cannot walk long distances. He could walk into town with difficulty but he would be in such discomfort and pain that he would not be able to walk back, at least not without resting for several hours. Tom has not sought medical assistance, does not like doctors and he does not like to take painkillers. Running out of food has a special meaning for Tom. As a child he suffered from malnutrition, apparently severe enough to affect his bone development. He stated that his fingers are deformed as a result.

Discuss what viable defence/defences Tom would be able to raise at trial and whether you think the defence/defences would be successful. Your answer should include reference to at least 1 case. (10 marks)

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Answer Tom could potentially raise the defence of necessity at trial The defence of necessity arises ... View the full answer