TORONTO -- A young driver lost an appeal Thursday of his conviction for a deadly crash that occurred minutes after a front-seat passenger, who was videotaping the ride, egged on his speeding.
However, Ontario's top court did moderate the four-year prison sentence handed to Robert Laine early last year, saying the trial judge had placed too much emphasis on deterring others from similar conduct.
Laine, of Brooklin, Ont., was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm arising out of a crash in June 2009 in which two women were killed and another person was seriously hurt.
Evidence was that he was driving home from the family cottage with five friends on a narrow country road in the City of Kawartha Lakes when he lost control on a curve, rolled over, and slammed into a hydro pole.
At trial, one of the four back-seat passengers testified that Laine, then 21 years old, was speeding so they could get the "rush feeling" when they went over hills, like on a roller coaster.
They almost crashed on one curve, but he managed to get the car back on the road, and sped up to as much as 140 kilometres an hour, according to evidence at the trial. The passenger in front videotaped the events and urged him to keep on going, although at least one other passenger urged him to slow down, according to court documents.
In convicting him, the trial judge concluded that Laine's driving was a "performance for the benefit of, and at the encouragement of, one of his passengers." She rejected his testimony that he had been forced off the road by an oncoming vehicle.
On appeal, Laine argued the judge's verdict was unreasonable, that she had made several errors in accepting evidence of one of the passengers while unfairly scrutinizing his own testimony.
The Court of Appeal disagreed, saying the trial judge reached her verdict based on the entirety of Laine's conduct, which had been criminally reckless.
"The appellant continued his wanton conduct without regard for the lives of those passengers in his vehicle or indeed others using the road," the Appeal Court said. "He was not chastened by the near miss; instead, he increased his speed."
Even Laine himself admitted that his actions had been "stupid," the court noted.
However, the Appeal Court did find the judge had been too harsh in giving him a four-year term even though Laine's behaviour had "utterly devastating" consequences.
No drugs or alcohol were involved, he was a first-time offender, and had no previous driving offences of note, the court said.
"The sentence imposed by the trial judge appears to have been mainly intended to deter others who might be inclined to drive as the appellant had driven," the Appeal Court said.
The undue emphasis on general deterrence, the court said, amounted to legal error.
As a result, the Appeal Court cut Laine's punishment to two years less a day.
