• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

17-year-old dies in fiery Petawawa crash

That Family is a Class act all the way...

I cant, and have not been anywhere near as forgiving towards Impaired drivers who have killed my friends, and friends of friends...

It's a senseless deplorable crime... and 100% avoidable using a simple technique called "Taking responsibility for yourself"

No excuses, end of Story...

I'm sad there is so much crappy case law and precedents set against impaired driving in this country, or else Judges could throw down some real sentences against these idiots.

I'm sure the Guilty party feels bad, and they will certainly have a long road ahead of them.... but they are still living... that's a simple pleasure Emily will never know again...

Thanks for the update MM

Cheers,
  Tommy
 
mariomike said:
Update:
http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2555980

As the link may disappear in a few hours/days/weeks/etc. here is the article:

Boyce sentenced to four years for crash that killed Petawawa teenager

Family of Emily Watts disappointed with verdict

By TINA PEPLINSKIE
Updated 6 months ago

Patricia Boyce, the woman responsible for the horrific death of Emily Watts, will spend the next four years behind bars.

Seventeen-year-old Emily died in a fiery car crash just metres away from her home, Sept. 10, 2009. She succumbed to the flames and smoke inside her vehicle as her parents stood by watching helplessly.

Emily's mother Joanne expressed disappointment after hearing the sentence handed down by Justice Robert Selkirk in Pembroke Wednesday.

She doesn't agree with the judge's assessment that Ms. Boyce's remorse was sincere.

"It's his decision and I guess we just have to deal with it," she said.

Emily's 15-year-old sister Melanie agreed.

"I think (Boyce) should have got a longer sentence," said the teen who celebrated her birthday alone for the first time this year. "I didn't think it was fair."

Melanie and Emily were more than sisters, they were best friends who shared everything, including the same Feb. 11 birthday, three years apart.

Emily's father Andrew seemed resigned to the jail term, which reflected a compromise between what defence lawyer Edwin Boeve was asking and Crown attorney Jason Nicol's push for six years.

"No amount of time will bring Em back," he said. "It would have been nice to send a more severe message to the community. I'm glad he (Justice Selkirk) spoke to the severity of the crime."

Present throughout the court proceedings along with the Watts and their supporters, were the accused's parents Marg and Jim Boyce.

The Boyces sat within the body of the courtroom listening to the evidence against their 29-year-old daughter, who the court heard was a source of frustration for them since her early teens.

The two families met Tuesday for the first time since the tragic accident.

Initially, Emily's aunt Lianne Marchant approached Ms. Boyce who was crying outside the courtroom. Ms. Watts recalled her sister asking her to speak with Ms. Boyce

"She was in tears and said she was very sorry for the loss of Emily," Ms. Watts said. "I accepted her apology because I don't want to hold a grudge."

Ms. Watts feels for the Boyces, who have custody of their daughter's six-year-old son.

The five-year sentence imposed by Justice Selkirk will be reduced to four years due to Ms. Boyce receiving credit for pre-sentence custody.

When released, she will be prohibited from driving for 10 years. Ms. Boyce will also be ban from owning and possessing weapons for 10 years and must provide a DNA sample.

The judge also recommended Ms. Boyce undergo a psychiatric assessment and participate in alcohol treatment.

He referred to the horrific details of the tragedy, calling it the senseless death of a young woman who loved life, and was full of potential.

"To the family thank you for your bravery and strength to give us a sense of the depth of your loss using your own words," the judge said. "The victim impact statements touched me and everyone who heard them. Your grief is overwhelming and I wish there was something I could do to help ease the pain, but I can only offer my condolences."

After spending 7 1/2 months in custody Ms. Boyce pleaded guilty to charges of impaired driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death in relation to the Sept. 10, 2009 crash.

That night she was behind the wheel of a Ford Escape when it slammed into the back of Emily's car as the teen waited to turn into the driveway of her family's Laurentian Drive home.

At the time Ms. Boyce's blood-alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit.

After leaving her Dundonald Drive residence around 10 p.m., a number of witnesses observed Ms. Boyce's erratic driving for 7.4 kilo-metres along a number of residential streets, where she reached speeds more than twice the posted limit.

She was travelling between 122 and 128 km/h when she struck Emily's car propelling it 54 metres down the road.

Aggravating factors in the case, according to Justice Selkirk, were the blood-alcohol levels of between .20 and .245, her significant signs of impairment, driving for an extended period of time through a residential area, her high speed and overall bad driving by cutting cars off and failing to stop for stop signs.

He believes even in her drunken state, Ms. Boyce knew she wasn't fit to drive, but she p>Since Emily's death, the Watts have relied on their strong faith to get them through.

"It was her time to go," Mr. Watts said outside the courtroom. "God has a plan for all of us and Emily's days were up. It was meant to be."

Mr. Watts admits he didn't need the sentencing to have closure because he already believes Emily is in heaven.

The court process forced him to relieve the images and emotions from that night.

He is glad it is over allowing his family to move forward one day at a time.

Despite Ms. Boyce's actions, Mr. Watts does not harbour any ill will towards the woman responsible for his daughter's death.

"I wish she wouldn't have driven that night, but no amount of anger or hate will do anything for Emily, it isn't constructive," he said.

He hopes Emily's story will have an impact on the young people in the community and hammer home the message that if you drink, don't drive.

He commented on the support of the community, which he called absolutely fantastic.

"Everyone has been so wonderful," Mr. Watts said.

"We have really felt the love and support of the community, which has been helpful for our healing."

Tina Peplinskie is a Daily Observer reporter

Article ID# 2555980
 
I don't get it.  I just don't get it.

Emily Watts is just as dead as if she had been shot by a gun, or strangled by Boyce.  Whether there is intent or not is irrelevant, the intent to drive when one knows they shouldn't should suffice.

Boyce should be spending 25 years behind bars without parole, a la first degree murder.

Four years.  People who do computer fraud get four years.  Unbelievable.
 
Occam said:
Boyce should be spending 25 years behind bars without parole, a la first degree murder.

"When an impaired driver kills someone, the impaired driver can be charged with impaired driving causing death. This is an indictable offence with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.":
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/pcvi-cpcv/id-cafa.html

"The five-year sentence imposed by Justice Selkirk will be reduced to four years due to Ms. Boyce receiving credit for pre-sentence custody."





 
mariomike said:
"When an impaired driver kills someone, the impaired driver can be charged with impaired driving causing death. This is an indictable offence with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.":
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/pcvi-cpcv/id-cafa.html

Which begs the question:  What do you have to do to get the maximum punishment?  Kill five people?  No, that'd result in 5 separate charges, and they'd all be sentenced concurrently.

Our justice system needs a swift kick in the pants.
 
Occam said:
Emily Watts is just as dead as if she had been shot by a gun, or strangled by Boyce.  Whether there is intent or not is irrelevant, the intent to drive when one knows they shouldn't should suffice.

Boyce should be spending 25 years behind bars without parole, a la first degree murder.
Such is our legal system - I've seen murder charges reduced to manslaughter because someone was on drugs at the time of the offence, meaning they couldn't form the intent.  >:(
 
Occam said:
I don't get it.  I just don't get it.

Emily Watts is just as dead as if she had been shot by a gun, or strangled by Boyce.  Whether there is intent or not is irrelevant, the intent to drive when one knows they shouldn't should suffice.

Boyce should be spending 25 years behind bars without parole, a la first degree murder.

Four years.  People who do computer fraud get four years.  Unbelievable.

I beg to differ, for the fol reasons:

1. As has been stated, there was no mens reas - in other words she did not intend to cause death;

2. Again, as has been stated, First Degree is often lowered to Second Degree or Manslaughter. I've seen people in jail for Manslaughter sentenced to six months. They beat people to death.
 
Yes, I understand the concept of mens rea.

What I am saying is that driving while drunk should be construed as intent to cause harm.

I know why it doesn't form intent under current legislation, but I don't agree with the logic.
 
In Canada we have a legal system and not a justice system. You can rarely expect a fair and equitable sentence for a criminal act in Canada. I don't think we should swing to the way of some jurisdictions (ie Texas), but our courts are to forgiving and concerned with the rights of the individual and not society in general.
 
WR said:
In Canada we have a legal system and not a justice system. You can rarely expect a fair and equitable sentence for a criminal act in Canada. I don't think we should swing to the way of some jurisdictions (ie Texas), but our courts are to forgiving and concerned with the rights of the individual and not society in general.
And therein lies the problem, in my opinion.  Society is a collection of individuals, and if one of those individuals breaks the law, why do we consider them over the rights, etc., of everybody else?  EG: Why can't law-abiding citizens be afforded the right to live in a society of individuals without having those who transgress our societal laws infringe upon their rights?
 
Back
Top