Introduced in the House of Commons on 21 November 2006 and reported with amendments by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on 20 June 2007, Bill C-32 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code(1) and other Acts intended to strengthen the enforcement of drug-impaired driving offences in Canada. Currently, section 253(a) of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to drive while one’s ability to operate a vehicle is impaired by alcohol or a drug, or a combination of alcohol and a drug. While section 253(b) contains a further offence for driving while one’s blood-alcohol level is over the legal alcohol limit, no similar drug limit offence exists. Thus, although drug-impaired driving is a criminal offence, police have few legally designated means of controlling that offence. Police currently rely on non-quantifiable symptoms of drug-impairment, such as erratic driving behaviour and witness testimony. Drug tests are admissible as evidence in court only if the driver participates voluntarily.
Bill C-32 expands drug enforcement capabilities by giving police the authority to demand physical sobriety tests and bodily fluid samples for section 253(a) investigations. Such tests will look for impairment by illegal, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs. As a first step, police officers will be authorized to administer Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) at the roadside if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the driver has a drug in his or her body. SFST involves physical sobriety evaluations such as divided attention tests that evaluate the driver’s ability to multitask. If the driver fails, the officer will then have reasonable grounds to believe that a drug-impaired driving offence has been committed, and can escort the driver to a police station for administration of a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evaluation involving a combination of interviews and physical observations. Should the DRE officer identify that a specific family of drugs is causing impairment, Bill C-32 allows officers to take a saliva, urine, or blood sample. Charges will not be laid without confirmation of preliminary DRE results through a toxicology report, but the results of such tests can then be used as evidence in drug-impaired driving prosecutions. A driver’s refusal to comply with an officer’s request for a physical sobriety or bodily fluid sample test constitutes a criminal offence punishable under the same provisions that are currently applicable for refusing to perform an alcohol breath or blood test.
Bill C-32 also increases penalties with respect to both alcohol- and drug-impaired driving under section 255(1) of the Criminal Code, and creates new offences with respect to impaired driving causing death or bodily harm: driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood and causing death (life imprisonment) or bodily harm (10 years’ imprisonment); and refusing to provide a breath, saliva, urine or blood sample while the accused knew or ought to have known that his or her operation of a vehicle had caused an accident resulting in death (life imprisonment) or bodily harm (10 years’ imprisonment).
Finally, specifically in terms of alcohol-impaired driving, Bill C-32 restricts challenges in court to the blood-alcohol concentration test result. While previously a defendant could call on witnesses to testify to the fact that he or she had drunk only small amounts of alcohol, or that he or she was drinking at a rate at which the alcohol consumed would have been absorbed and eliminated by the accused’s body, Bill C-32 limits the use of “evidence to the contrary” to evidence tending to show that the breathalyzer was malfunctioning or was operated improperly, and that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood would not have exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.
Parliament considered the issue of drug-impaired driving in May 1999, when the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released its report entitled Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving. In this report, the Committee recognized that drugs play a contributory role in some fatal motor vehicle accidents, and that the extent of drug-impaired driving has been underestimated because police have no easy means to test for drugs under the current legislation. The Committee asserted a clear need to implement better measures for detecting drug-impaired driving and for obtaining the evidence necessary for successful prosecution.
However, the Committee pointed out several obstacles to achieving this goal. For example, the Criminal Code requires that police have “reasonable and probable grounds” to suspect impairment before they can administer testing; the Committee noted that Parliament would have to provide clear guidance on the scope of “reasonable and probable grounds” if refusal to comply with testing was to become a criminal offence. As well, there was an apparent lack of a single non-invasive test for detecting the presence of drugs that could impair a driver. Ultimately, a blood sample would probably be required. The Committee approved of DRE testing, but commented that the provinces have ultimate control of training in this area. As well, the Committee emphasized the need to consider the Charter implications of any drug testing, as the proposed tests might be more intrusive and time-consuming than those used to detect alcohol impairment.
The Committee made two recommendations on drug-impaired driving. The first was that section 256 of the Criminal Code be amended to allow a justice to authorize the taking of a blood sample to test for the presence of alcohol or drugs, based on reasonable and probable grounds that an impaired driving offence has been committed. As well, the Committee recommended that the Minister of Justice consult with the provinces and territories to develop legislative proposals for obtaining better evidence against suspected drug-impaired drivers.
In September 2002, the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs issued a report entitled Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. This report found that between 5% and 12% of drivers may drive while under the influence of cannabis. Emphasizing the use of cannabis among young drivers, the report stated that this percentage increases to over 20% for men under 25. The Committee stated that cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in driving and thus is not, in itself, a traffic risk. However, although cannabis use often leads to a more cautious style of driving, it still has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory, making it difficult for drivers to stay in their lanes. In addition, a significant percentage of impaired drivers test positive for both cannabis and alcohol together, and the effects of cannabis when combined with alcohol are more significant than for alcohol alone.
The Senate Committee also pointed out that there is no reliable, non-intrusive, rapid roadside testing method for drugs. Blood is the best medium for testing for cannabis; urine cannot screen for recent use; saliva could work, but no rapid commercial tests are reliable enough. However, the visual recognition method used by police had yielded satisfactory results in the past. The Committee emphasized that it was essential to conduct further studies in order to develop a rapid testing tool, and to learn more about the driving habits of cannabis users.
As a final recommendation with regard to the need to prohibit drug-impaired driving, the Committee suggested two amendments to the Criminal Code: lowering the permitted alcohol level to 40 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood when combined with drugs, especially cannabis; and admitting evidence from expert police officers trained in detecting persons operating vehicles under the influence of drugs.
Responding to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights’ 1999 recommendations, the Department of Justice’s Working Group on Impaired Driving consulted extensively with provinces and territories on the issue, and published the Drug-Impaired Driving: Consultation Document in October 2003. In reaction to apparent concerns that many drug-impaired drivers were not voluntarily participating in testing under the current regime, the Working Group emphasized the need for a legislated system that would allow police to demand that drivers suspected of being impaired submit to testing.
The Working Group outlined two main options. The first of these was to set a legal limit on drugs in the body. However, it recognized that a zero limit might not be appropriate, as it would catch drivers who had cannabis in their system from weeks earlier and who were not currently impaired.
The second option was to legislate in relation to the ability of police officers to demand drug tests. Essentially outlining the scheme established in Bill C-32, with some exceptions, the Working Group suggested that a certified SFST officer could demand a physical sobriety test, or take a saliva or sweat sample at the roadside, based on a reasonable suspicion of drug-impairment. Failure on these tests would constitute reasonable grounds to conduct a DRE evaluation at a police station. The police could then demand a confirmatory bodily fluid sample (blood, urine, saliva) based on a reasonable belief that the driver had committed a section 253(a) offence involving a drug or a combination of drugs and alcohol in the previous three hours. Both the DRE and sample test results would be admissible in evidence, and refusal to submit to such tests would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code.
However, the Working Group also emphasized that because of Charter rights sensitivities, legislators would have to give serious consideration to current Criminal Code provisions permitting demands for evidential breath or DNA samples that have already survived Charter challenges. Legislators would also have to consider the point in the process at which a suspect must be given information on his or her right to counsel.
The House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs published the most recent parliamentary report involving drug-impaired driving in the fall of 2003.(2) It briefly called for Parliament to develop a strategy to address the issue of drug-impaired driving following a review of a bill proposing to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. On 26 April 2004, Bill C-32 was introduced in the House of Commons and would have amended the Criminal Code to deal with drug-impaired driving. This bill was later referred to committee for study before second reading, but died on the Order Paper in May 2004 when an election was called. The following government introduced the substantially similar Bill C-16 in the House of Commons on 1 November 2004. The Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness reported that amended bill (which was in many ways similar to this current Bill C-32) back to the House of Commons before second reading on 14 November 2005, but the bill died on the Order Paper in late November 2005 when an election was called.
Although DRE testing has not yet been implemented through the Criminal Code, this form of testing is already widely used in most U.S. states, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Norway and Sweden. Even in Canada, police forces are already using DRE testing in Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba, although only in cases where the driver participates voluntarily. The tests have survived court challenges up to the United States Supreme Court.(3) A National DRE Coordinator is currently working with law enforcement agencies across the country and developing an operational framework for DRE in Canada. As of November 2004 there were 1,794 police officers trained in standardized field sobriety tests and 106 certified DRE-trained officers in Canada.(4)
In terms of the primary, drug-impaired driving, scope of the proposed legislation, clauses 1 and 3 of Bill C-32 provide some preliminary clarification to support the new provisions in the Criminal Code. Clause 1 renumbers the primary impaired driving provision, section 253, as section 253(1), and adds a new subsection clarifying that the phrase “impairment by alcohol or a drug” includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug.
Clauses 3(1) and (2) amend the definitions contained in section 254(1) by expanding the scope of their application to include new provisions laid out in Bill C-32, and to add a definition of “evaluating officer” as a peace officer who is qualified under the regulations to conduct DRE evaluations.
The basis of the new testing system for drug-impaired driving is laid out in clause 3(3), which clarifies and expands the language used in sections 254(2) to (6) of the Criminal Code.
Section 254(2) now contains the first phase of testing for drug-impaired driving (SFST), stating that where a roadside peace officer has a reasonable suspicion that a driver has alcohol or a drug in his or her body and has operated a motor vehicle in the preceding three hours, the officer may require the driver to, forthwith, a) perform an SFST physical coordination test as prescribed by the regulations to determine whether further tests for alcohol or drug use must be undertaken, and b) in the case of alcohol, provide a breath sample. The officer may make a video recording of the SFST for greater certainty.
The updated section 254(3) mirrors its predecessor by providing that a peace officer may demand a breath or blood sample where the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has been driving while impaired by alcohol within the preceding three hours.
Sections 254(3.1) to (3.3) are entirely new. Section 254(3.1) contains the second phase of testing for drug-impaired driving (DRE), which will generally follow when a suspect fails the SFST. As soon as practicable, a peace officer who reasonably believes that a person has been driving while impaired by a drug, or a combination of alcohol and a drug, within the preceding three hours may demand that the driver submit to a DRE(5) conducted by a DRE officer at a police station. The officer may make a video of this evaluation.
Complementing these provisions, section 254(3.2) states that, as soon as practicable, a DRE officer may demand a breath sample where the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his or her body and the roadside peace officer did not request a test under sections 254(2) or (3).
Section 254(3.3) contains the final phase of testing for drug-impaired driving – a bodily fluid sample. As soon as practicable upon completion of the DRE evaluation, if the DRE officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the driver’s ability to operate a vehicle is impaired by a drug or a combination of alcohol and a drug, the DRE officer may demand that the driver provide a saliva, urine, or blood sample.
Finally, sections 254(4) to (6) are simply reiterated or clarified to encompass the new provisions. Most notably, section 254(4) states that samples of blood may be taken only by a medical practitioner or technician who is satisfied that taking samples would not cause injury to the individual. Clause 7 of the bill updates the former section 257(2) to ensure that neither the physician nor the technician will be guilty of a criminal offence or liable at civil law for taking a blood sample under sections 254(3) or (3.3) when this is reasonably and necessarily done.
Because the precise specifications for the tests laid out in section 254 are not outlined in the Criminal Code, clause 4 of Bill C-32 adds section 254.1, allowing the Governor in Council to make regulations on the qualifications and training of DRE officers, prescribing SFST physical coordination tests, and prescribing DRE tests and procedures.
As in the earlier section 254(5) “refusal to comply” offence dealing solely with alcohol-related testing, refusal by a driver to comply with drug tests is now also a criminal offence. Section 255(4) holds that a person convicted under section 253 or 254(5) is deemed to be convicted for a subsequent offence if they have already been convicted under these provisions.
Clauses 5(1) and (2) of Bill C-32 increase the penalties for alcohol- and drug-impaired driving offences laid out in section 255(1). For a first offence, the minimum fine will increase from $600 to $1,000; for a second offence, the minimum term of imprisonment will increase from 14 days to 30 days; and for each subsequent offence, the minimum term of imprisonment will increase from 90 to 120 days. Where the offence is punishable on summary conviction, the maximum term of imprisonment will increase from 6 months to 18 months.
Clause 5(3) clarifies language concerning the punishment laid out in section 255 in order to incorporate the new drug-impaired driving provisions. As before, sections 255(2) and (3) hold that an alcohol- or drug-impaired driving offence under section 253(1)(a) that causes bodily harm is punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment, and that such an offence that causes death is punishable by life imprisonment. Two new offences for impaired driving causing bodily harm or death are also added with the same penalties: driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood under section 253(1)(b) and causing death (life imprisonment) or bodily harm (10 years’ imprisonment); and refusing to provide a breath, saliva, urine or blood sample while the accused knew or ought to have known that his or her operation of a vehicle had caused an accident resulting in death
(life imprisonment) or bodily harm (10 years’ imprisonment).
Clauses 6 and 8 clarify the language in sections 256(5) and 258 so as to incorporate the new offences and drug-impaired driving provisions. Clause 6 updates section 256(5), which still holds that when a section 256(1) warrant to obtain a blood sample is executed, the peace officer shall give a copy to the person from whom the samples were taken.
Clauses 8 and 9 deal with the ability of prosecutors to use test results as evidence in court proceedings. Charges will not be laid unless a toxicology report confirms preliminary DRE evaluations. Clarifying the language on procedure and evidence, clauses 8(2) to (9) update section 258(1) to incorporate the new drug testing provisions and to ensure that the results of such tests can be used as evidence in drug-impaired driving prosecutions, as is currently the case with alcohol-impaired driving prosecutions. Essentially, the results of analyses of breath, blood, urine, or other bodily fluid samples may be admitted in evidence even if the accused was not warned prior to the taking of the sample that he or she need not consent to the procedure, nor that the result might be used in evidence.
Clauses 8(3), (5), (6), and (7) update section 258(1) to restrict challenges in court to the blood-alcohol concentration test result. While previously a defendant could call on witnesses to testify that he or she had drunk only small amounts of alcohol, or that he or she was drinking at a rate at which the alcohol consumed would have been absorbed and eliminated by the accused’s body, Bill C-32 limits the use of “evidence to the contrary” to evidence tending to show that the breathalyzer was malfunctioning or was operated improperly, that the malfunction or improper operation resulted in the determination that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood, and that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood would not have exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. Clause 8(7) ensures that the signature of the technician who certifies the breathalyzer printout is sufficient evidence of the facts alleged in that printout, without necessitating proof of the signature or official character of that technician. In essence, the Alcohol Test Record printed by the breathalyzer that confirms that it is in good working order, will be admitted as evidence.
Clarifying the language in sections 258(2) to (6) to incorporate the new provisions, clause 8(10) of the bill provides that unless a person is required to give a sample under sections 254(2)(b), (3), (3.2), or (3.3), evidence of failure to give a sample is not admissible at trial, nor may it be made the subject of comment at trial. Evidence of failure to comply with a demand to give a sample under section 254 is admissible as evidence at trial in respect of a section 253(1)(a) offence, and the court may draw an adverse inference from such failure to comply. If, at the time a sample is taken, an additional sample is taken and retained, a judge may release one sample for testing if so requested by the accused, subject to any necessary conditions to ensure that the sample is preserved for use in proceedings in respect of which the sample was taken. A sample of the accused’s blood taken to test alcohol concentration under section 254(3) or 256, or with the accused’s consent, may be tested to determine any concentration of drugs in the blood. Finally, an accused may require the attendance of the medical practitioner, analyst, or technician who signed a certificate described in section 258(1) for the purposes of cross-examination.
Clause 9 of the bill adds a new provision to the Criminal Code concerning the unauthorized use of samples. New section 258.1(1) states that samples taken under sections 254(2)(b), (3), (3.2) or (3.3), or 256, or with the consent of the accused from whom it was taken on the request of a peace officer, or medical samples that are provided by consent and subsequently seized under a warrant, may be used only for the analyses referred to in those provisions. Section 258.1(2) holds that the results of tests and sample analysis taken under sections 254(2) to (3.3), or 256, or with consent of the accused from whom it was taken on the request of a peace officer, or medical samples that are provided by consent and subsequently seized under a warrant, may be disclosed or used only in the course of a proceeding for or an investigation of an offence under sections 220, 221, 236, and 249 to 255, an offence under the Aeronautics Act,an offence concerning the use of drugs or alcohol under the Railway Safety Act, or in relation to a provincial offence. However, the results of physical coordination tests, DRE evaluations, or analyses referred to in subsection (2) may be disclosed to the individual to whom they relate, or to any other person if made anonymously and for statistical or other research purposes. Finally, the restrictions noted above do not apply to persons who are using samples for medical purposes that are subsequently seized under a warrant (new section 258.1(3)). The new section 258.1(4) creates a summary conviction offence for anyone who contravenes sections 258.1(1) or (2).
Clause 10 amends section 259 to include operation of a motor vehicle in Canada while disqualified from doing so under section 259 as an offence for which a sentencing judge is required to impose an order prohibiting an offender from operating a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment. In addition to the period for which the offender may be incarcerated, for a first offence, this order shall be for 1 to 3 years; for a second offence, for 2 to 5 years; and for each subsequent offence, for a minimum of 3 years. The clause also ensures that the new impaired driving offences causing death or bodily harm (sections 255(2.1) to (3.2)) may also be subject to such an order.
Clause 11 adds a new section 261(1.1) to ensure that upon appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, only a judge of the court being appealed from can stay an order made under sections 259(1) or (2).
Clause 11.1 states that a parliamentary committee will undertake a review of the impaired driving provisions (Criminal Code and regulations) within five years of this Act coming into force. That committee will report back to Parliament, including any suggestions for recommended changes.
The changes to the Criminal Code made by Bill C-32 also necessitate consequential amendments to other legislation to incorporate the new drug testing provisions.
Clause 12 amends the Aeronautics Act. Section 8.6 of that Act is amended to state that a sample relating to the presence of alcohol or a drug in the body obtained under the Criminal Code is admissible in Aeronautics Act proceedings. The provisions of section 258 of the Criminal Code, except section 258(1)(a), apply with any necessary modifications.
Clause 14 amends the Railway Safety Act. Section 41(7) of that Act is amended to state that a sample relating to the presence of alcohol or a drug in the body obtained under the Criminal Code is admissible in Railway Safety Act proceedings involving contraventions respecting the use of alcohol or a drug. The provisions of section 258 of the Criminal Code apply with any necessary modifications.
Clause 13 amends the Customs Act. Section 163.5(2) of that Act is amended to grant a customs officer the powers of a peace officer under sections 254 and 256 of the Criminal Code. If a blood or breath sample, or DRE testing, is required, a person may be required to accompany a peace officer for that purpose.
Clauses 15 and 16 are aimed at coordinating the timing of Bill C-32’s amendments with those contained in Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; and in Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments).
In support of Bill C-32, it appears to be clear that drug users are frequently involved in fatal accidents. Studies estimate that 3.4% of motor vehicle accident fatalities and 1.7% of injuries are the result of drug-impairment, and that these estimated proportions more than double when dealing with impairment by a combination of alcohol and drugs.(6) One study hasindicated that more than 30% of fatal accidents in Quebec involve drugs, while another shows that 20% of fatal accidents in British Columbia involve drugs or a combination of alcohol and drugs.(7) A significant proportion of Canadians have also admitted to driving within a few hours of consuming drugs. Surveys have shown that 4.8% of Canadian drivers have taken the wheel within two hours of using cannabis, while close to 20% have taken the wheel within two hours of taking a potentially impairing drug – whether over-the-counter, prescription, or illegal.(8) The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health released a study that found that about 20% of Ontario high school students admit to driving a vehicle within one hour of using cannabis at least once within the preceding year.(9) The 2002 Nova Scotia Student Drug Use Survey also indicated that about 26% of students with a driver’s licence had driven within one hour of using cannabis over the preceding year.(10)
One of the critical problems with introducing measures to combat drug-impaired driving is that there is no scientific consensus on threshold drug concentration levels in the body that cause impairment, making driving hazardous. Unlike the breathalyzer test used for alcohol, there is no objective test to measure drug-impairment. Ultimately, there is no measurable link between driving impairment and drug quantity. Added to this is the fact that traces of some drugs can remain in the body for weeks, making it difficult to evaluate impairment or even recent use. For example, tetrahydrocannabinol (the active ingredient in cannabis) can be detected in the body for up to four weeks, although its impairing effects do not last. Because there is no scientifically proven threshold, Bill C-32 does not propose a “legal limit” like section 253(b) for drunk driving. Some critics argue that because there is no threshold, drug-impaired driving prosecutions will be thrown out in court. Others argue, however, that it is precisely because there is no clear drug limit that DRE testing is needed.(11)
Research has shown that DRE evaluations are effective 75% to 90% of the time. The Department of Justice has stated that DRE-trained officers have proven to be more than 90% accurate in determining impairment and the type of drug that caused impairment. As well, DRE testing can rule out drug impairment in drivers who have a medical condition and get these drivers medical attention.(12) Ultimately, the argument is that Bill C-32 will help to secure more convictions for drug-impaired driving. Currently, such convictions are rare, and British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan are the only provinces with registered convictions. DRE testing under Bill C-32 will also help to minimize false arrests.(13)
Some commentators have expressed concern that Bill C-32’s new Criminal Code provisions involve invasive testing and will give the police too much power, leading to the potential for violations of privacy and personal security rights. Critics argue that these enhanced enforcement measures will spawn court challenges on the basis of illegal search and seizure, arbitrary detention, protection against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. The Department of Justice counters that this new legislation allows police the same powers as they already have to deal with drunk drivers. Those provisions have stood up to Charter scrutiny, partially because of the standard need for “reasonable grounds” of belief before demanding a test, and partially because of section 1 of the Charter, which places a reasonable limit on the right to be free from search and seizure.(14)
Finally, critics point to the onus that will fall on the provinces if this legislation is passed. If these new measures come into force, it will be up to the provinces to pay for related police training, and policing resources are already scarce.(15) Federal budget cuts announced in September 2006 eliminated the RCMP drug-impaired driving program’s $4.6-million training budget. The Prime Minister has stated the government’s evaluation was that the training program was not effective and there are no plans to reinstate it.(16) However, some media reports indicate that the federal government intends to provide about $2 million a year in funding for training or to carry out the testing.(17)
In addition to challenges on the basis of the DRE testing itself, other commentators note that the new offences of refusing to provide a breath, saliva, urine or blood sample while the accused knew or ought to have known that his or her operation of a vehicle had caused an accident resulting in death (punishable by life imprisonment) or bodily harm (10 years’ imprisonment) are unconstitutional. They argue that there is no connection between the fact that one refuses to provide a bodily substance and the accident itself. Refusal to provide a sample may effectively eliminate any defence for the accused.(18)
In terms of the restrictions on evidence proposed in Bill C-32, while proponents argue that these will eliminate a current loophole in the law, others comment that restricting challenges in court to the blood-alcohol concentration test result is eliminating a valid safety valve that currently ensures that court judgments involve some discretion and are not automatic decisions based on breathalyzer machine results. The concern is that this restriction may weaken the presumption of innocence.(19)
© Library of Parliament
