The case of Taylor Kennedy, who is charged with THC-impaired driving causing death after a nine-year-old girl was killed in an accident in Sept. 2021, was heard in Saskatoon Provincial Court. Kennedy’s lawyer argued that her comments to police after the accident were compelled by the officers and should not be held against her. Kennedy told police at the crime scene that she had consumed marijuana and mushrooms the night before, leading to a drug recognition expert conducting an oral swab for THC. Her lawyer, Thomas Hynes, argued that Kennedy believed she was required by law to answer all questions from police when involved in an accident.
During the defence’s closing case, Hynes argued that Kennedy was not informed by police when the investigation turned from a traffic matter to a criminal investigation. He stated that Kennedy was not told she had the right to stop responding to officers. Hynes contended that Kennedy’s admissions to drug consumption were made under the subjective belief that she was compelled by law to report it. Crown prosecutor Michael Pilon countered this argument, stating that officers did not ask Kennedy about drug consumption until after she had voluntarily provided that information. Pilon argued that Kennedy told police everything she did out of a moral obligation and a desire to help the victim, not because she was compelled by police.
Pilon argued that Kennedy’s recollection of the events was not reliable, possibly due to her emotional state or prior drug consumption. He stated that Kennedy admitted fault for the collision and believed it was the right thing to do by telling police everything. The decision now lies with Judge Jane Wootten, who must determine whether Kennedy’s comments were compelled by police or given voluntarily. The case will continue next week with a decision expected to be made on Wednesday. Pilon emphasized that the officers did not tell Kennedy she was required to answer questions, and he believed Kennedy’s statements were made willingly.
The arguments presented in court highlighted the debate over whether Kennedy’s statements to police were compelled or made voluntarily. The defence argued that Kennedy believed she had to answer all questions from police due to a perceived legal obligation. On the other hand, the Crown prosecutor contended that Kennedy’s statements were made voluntarily out of a sense of moral duty and a desire to assist with the investigation. The judge will need to weigh these arguments and consider the evidence presented in order to make a determination on the admissibility of Kennedy’s statements in court.
The case involving Taylor Kennedy, who is charged with THC-impaired driving causing death, raises important legal questions regarding the admissibility of statements made to police. The arguments put forth by both the defence and the Crown prosecutor shed light on the complexities of the case and the differing interpretations of Kennedy’s statements. Ultimately, Judge Jane Wootten will need to carefully consider all aspects of the case before making a decision on whether Kennedy’s comments were compelled by police or given voluntarily. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for future cases involving similar circumstances.
