Today we came face to face with Shawn Dreveski. Our family, along with the Nguyen family, left early this morning to travel to Brandon together. We set our expectations low knowing the prosecution was pushing to have both a plea and sentencing take place today. The defence was on board as the prosecution was only recommending a fine and driver’s license condition. We arrived at the court house at the same moment as Dreveski. My Dad almost opened the door for him before realizing who was following him up the steps. When my Dad realized who it was and stopped, Dreveski gave him a smirk and continued on to take a seat in the waiting room like he didn’t have a care in the world. The case was on the general docket so we waited in a private room for a couple hours until Dreveski was called. The prosecutor came to gather us and proceeded to thank us a few times for coming to the hearing. What I really wanted to say was we’re here for Jared & Ngan, not you. Just do your job and thanking us for coming is not your job or place. However the anger I felt was what I needed as at that moment; I informed her I would be reading my victim impact statement rather than allowing her to. Last week I really felt my victim impact statement would make no difference but I couldn’t let go of the small bit of hope it that it could, I’m thankful now that I decided to submit a statement. When the prosecutor called us into the court room Dreveski plead guilty to two counts of Careless Driving Causing Death under the HTA. The prosecutor then stated her position for sentencing – a heavy fine along with a driver’s license condition. She went on to state this was a serious case resulting in two deaths with a lot of public interest however Dreveski’s record and the facts provided lead them to this sentencing recommendation. Next I was called to read my victim impact statement. I read the statement with my head down until I got to the last paragraph; the last paragraph was my chance to tell the judge and Dreveski how I felt he should be sentenced. I tried to make eye contact with Dreveski while reading however he wouldn’t cooperate. Next was the defences turn to provide their position and present the facts they felt should influence the sentence decided. This is where things got interesting as this is the first time we heard what Dreveski included in his statement to the RCMP. Dreveski had been sleeping in his vehicle for a week prior to the accident; there had been a fire in his apartment which resulted in him not having anywhere to stay. He had apparently been very tired that day while working – his job was driving a delivery vehicle for Gardwine. He apparently pulled over twice earlier in the day to take a nap and was taking back roads to reach his destination as he was so tired he didn’t want to be on the main highways. He said he even called his employer during the day to explain how tired he was and was told to do what he could. Dreveski said while heading South on PR#270 he was awaken by the rumble strips on the highway but didn’t have time to stop. Jared hit him and the van stopped in the middle of the intersection against a light pole. The defence went on to ask the judge to consider Dreveski’s situation when deciding how heavy a fine would be levied. He stated Dreveski was let go from his job at Gardwine following the accident, he was a single father of three now working at a fast food restaurant. Dreveski was given a chance to make a statement to the court, we’re not sure if his emotion was due to remorse or if he was concerned with the amount of fine to be decided, but he stated he sometimes cries himself to sleep and hoped today would bring closure. The judge then did something completely unexpected and very much appreciated. He told the prosecution and defence he would be reserving his sentencing decision. He felt this matter required time to think about sentencing and deserved a private sentencing hearing rather than being on the general docket as it was today. I believe or hope what this means is he doesn’t agree with the recommendation or at least wants to give this the thought it deserves. This is what we’ve been asking for all along. Today brought us some peace and hope that maybe there is a possibility for justice. At the same time it was frustrating as facts presented by the defence make us once again question the competence of the prosecution and RCMP investigation. Dreveski said he was awaken by the rumble strips – those rumble strips now on PR#270 were installed after the accident. Originally we were raising funds to pay for the installation ourselves but our friends contacted the province and received a response on August 7, 2013 confirming they would proceed with installation and fund 100% of the cost. Did no one notice there were no rumble strips present at the time of the accident? There’s no way the statement Dreveski provided could be truthful. The prosecution didn’t proceed with the two counts of Dangerous Driving Causing Death, which Dreveski was originally charged with. They previously explained to us that in order to proceed with dangerous driving causing death there needs to be a departure from that of a reasonable driver, a momentary lapse in judgement does not suffice and the facts in this case don’t allow them to proceed with these charges. Dreveski stated he drove on July 12, 2013 knowing he was sleep deprived. So tired he pulled over twice, called his employer to explain how tired he was, took some back roads to avoid traffic. To me this sounds like a lengthy departure from that of a reasonable driver. He made a decision to continue driving that day and ended up killing Jared and Ngan as a result. Driving causing bodily harm or death is among the more serious of motor vehicle offences as it places completely innocent bystanders at risk of harm. There is an inherent danger in an object such as a motor vehicle moving in areas where people frequent such as a busy highway in the middle of the afternoon. My research has shown general principles of Dangerous Driving Causing Death include the Court’s primary emphasis is placed on general deterrence and the sentence must be proportionate to the nature of the harm inflicted. There must be an emphasis on general deterrence, particularly where the consequences are devastating in order to make clear these are true crimes rather than mere accidents. Aggravating factors to consider include driving when knowingly being deprived of adequate sleep or rest and where more than one person was killed as a result of the offence. Potential mitigating factors not present in this case include genuine shock or remorse; the offenders age where lack of driving experience contributed to the office; where the offender was seriously injured as a result. I don’t know if it’s too late to still proceed with charges of Dangerous Driving Causing Death. But there’s still time and hope the judge will question the truthfulness of the facts provided by the defence and hand down an appropriate sentence for Careless Driving Causing Death. And in the meantime I’m awaiting a response from the Crown regarding the dropped charges of Dangerous Driving Causing Death. I hope by sharing our experience the public pressure will contribute to a resolution we can live with. Please share. Please raise your voice. Once again we are asking our friends to make as much noise as possible. If we can bring light to this case maybe it will make a difference here or for someone else’s family in the future. Nicole Youzwa July 10, 2014
Posted on: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 02:54:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015