BEVERLEY WARE South Shore Bureau
Sat. Feb 13 – 4:54 AM
LIVERPOOL — An RCMP officer has been acquitted of having care or control of a motor vehicle while she was impaired by liquor.
Liverpool provincial court Judge Jim Burrill said Catherine Mansley of the Tantallon RCMP detachment had blood alcohol readings that were more than twice the legal limit the night police found her in a parked car, but he said he was convinced she had no intention of driving the vehicle.
“I’m satisfied she was significantly impaired” and that she was in the driver’s seat with open liquor in the car when a Queens RCMP officer came upon her, Burrill said.
But “I do find and accept the evidence of Ms. Mansley that she didn’t intend to drive her vehicle” after it was parked in the Pine Grove parking lot.
The way the car was parked also convinced the judge that there was no chance the vehicle could accidently be set in motion.
As a result he acquitted her of having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and of having more than the allowable amount of alcohol in her blood to drive.
Mansley testified Friday that she had planned to spend four days with her boyfriend in Milton, Queens County, when they had a falling out on Jan. 31, 2009. As a result, she went to a neighbour’s house for 3½ hours while she waited for a police officer to get her medications and dogs from the boyfriend’s house.
She said the neighbours asked her to leave their home because her ex-boyfriend had a history of bad relationships and could become violent.
Mansley said she would have expected the police officer who responded to the domestic dispute call to have told her if there were any hotels in the area, but he didn’t. She also said the RCMP officer gave her no assistance and the judge agreed.
Mansley also testified that she knew no one in the area and felt she had no choice but to spend the night in her car in the parking lot of Pine Grove Park, located on Highway 8 between Liverpool and Milton.
Mansley testified she had “absolutely no intent” of driving her car that night. “That’s why I was there.”
She said the park is “500 metres or so . . . a 10-second drive” from the neighbour’s house where she had stayed until about 1:30 a.m.
She told the court she flashed her lights at two passing RCMP cars to get their attention and let them know she was spending the night in her vehicle.
Other evidence at the trial indicated that an officer pulled up and found her in the driver’s seat with open liquor in the car. She also had her two dogs with her, three comforters and laundry, including her RCMP uniform.
She agreed her blood alcohol level was .19 and .18, or 190 and 180 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The legal limit is .08.
But Mansley said her judgment was not affected and she had no intention of drinking the beer and rum in her car.
“I was upset that night, very anxious,” she testified. “I was upset I was kicked out and that the police did not do what they should do to protect me.”
Mansley also said she thought she was “acting very responsibly” that night.
In his judgement, Burrill questioned whether she had control of her faculties and sense of judgment, but said there was no evidence Mansley drove the vehicle to the parking lot because the prosecutor didn’t ask her who drove the car there. As a result it was possible that someone else had driven it there.
He also noted that her keys were not in the ignition and while she had flashed her lights to get the attention of police, that can be done without turning on the ignition. She did put the power window up on the car, but that was at the police officer’s request, the judge said.
Burrill said Mansley took blankets with her so he believed she intended to spend the night in her vehicle.
Noting that the car was parked on a flat surface and had the parking brake on, the judge said he was “satisfied there was no risk of the vehicle being unintentionally set in motion,” and there was minimal risk she would change her mind and drive away.
The RCMP were not able to comment Friday on Mansley’s status with the force but may be able to do so today.
Beverley Ware, Liverpool, N.S. (Halifax Chronicle Herald) - An RCMP officer has been acquitted of having care or control of a motor vehicle while she was impaired by liquor.
Liverpool provincial court Judge Jim Burrill said Catherine Mansley of the Tantallon RCMP detachment had blood alcohol readings that were more than twice the legal limit the night police found her in a parked car, but he said he was convinced she had no intention of driving the vehicle.
“I’m satisfied she was significantly impaired” and that she was in the driver’s seat with open liquor in the car when a Queens RCMP officer came upon her, Burrill said.
But “I do find and accept the evidence of Ms. Mansley that she didn’t intend to drive her vehicle” after it was parked in the Pine Grove parking lot.
The way the car was parked also convinced the judge that there was no chance the vehicle could accidently be set in motion.
As a result he acquitted her of having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and of having more than the allowable amount of alcohol in her blood to drive.
Mansley testified Friday that she had planned to spend four days with her boyfriend in Milton, Queens County, when they had a falling out on Jan. 31, 2009. As a result, she went to a neighbour’s house for 3½ hours while she waited for a police officer to get her medications and dogs from the boyfriend’s house.
She said the neighbours asked her to leave their home because her ex-boyfriend had a history of bad relationships and could become violent.
Mansley said she would have expected the police officer who responded to the domestic dispute call to have told her if there were any hotels in the area, but he didn’t. She also said the RCMP officer gave her no assistance and the judge agreed.
Mansley also testified that she knew no one in the area and felt she had no choice but to spend the night in her car in the parking lot of Pine Grove Park, located on Highway 8 between Liverpool and Milton.
Mansley testified she had “absolutely no intent” of driving her car that night. “That’s why I was there.”
She said the park is “500 metres or so . . . a 10-second drive” from the neighbour’s house where she had stayed until about 1:30 a.m.
She told the court she flashed her lights at two passing RCMP cars to get their attention and let them know she was spending the night in her vehicle.
Other evidence at the trial indicated that an officer pulled up and found her in the driver’s seat with open liquor in the car. She also had her two dogs with her, three comforters and laundry, including her RCMP uniform.
She agreed her blood alcohol level was .19 and .18, or 190 and 180 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The legal limit is .08.
But Mansley said her judgment was not affected and she had no intention of drinking the beer and rum in her car.
“I was upset that night, very anxious,” she testified. “I was upset I was kicked out and that the police did not do what they should do to protect me.”
Mansley also said she thought she was “acting very responsibly” that night.
In his judgement, Burrill questioned whether she had control of her faculties and sense of judgment, but said there was no evidence Mansley drove the vehicle to the parking lot because the prosecutor didn’t ask her who drove the car there. As a result it was possible that someone else had driven it there.
He also noted that her keys were not in the ignition and while she had flashed her lights to get the attention of police, that can be done without turning on the ignition. She did put the power window up on the car, but that was at the police officer’s request, the judge said.
Burrill said Mansley took blankets with her so he believed she intended to spend the night in her vehicle.
Noting that the car was parked on a flat surface and had the parking brake on, the judge said he was “satisfied there was no risk of the vehicle being unintentionally set in motion,” and there was minimal risk she would change her mind and drive away.
The RCMP were not able to comment Friday on Mansley’s status with the force but may be able to do so today.
DT, you have some good points here. Lots of things were different back in the early 70’s and unfortunately society was one of them. HR is part of it, watered down demilitarized training is another. But, even if this were implemented I don’t think it is possible to find the same type of recruit nowadays that you had back then.
Back then the force recruited farm boys, guys who grew up working in the woods and guys who grew up on a fishing boat. The problem is nobody grows up working anymore. Heck, nowadays they have to bring in Jamaicans and Mexicans to pick the apples and farm the fields.
I guess these are all reasons many of the outgoing members feel that the golden age for the RCMP has came and gone…
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
19 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
5 
12
Deepthroat, you are right about the courts. A common sense revolution is needed there.
If the force is using the law to rid a bad employee from it’s ranks, it is testament to a very broken HRM system.
Right now my wife is in a upper middle management position where she is in charge of 60 health care professionals as well as their subordinates. The problem she sees in her job is that by using lame things to unload low educated subordinates and”upgrade” them, it also so means that she ends up having to fire her highly educated top level employees for the same infractions. Good intelligent dedicated people who made one stupid mistake with no previous problems that should have just gotten a slap on the wrist.
DT, when you mentioned Mansley’s company being suspect it reminded me of a story I heard years ago. An old timer once said that female members often get sleazy boyfriends. I rebutted, “yes, but don’t men get sleazy girlfriends” and he said something to the effect of that they may have lots of sex with these girls, they don’t fall in love with them. I can’t say I agree or disagree with this. But, it is food for thought….
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
15 
3
The case law decisions on impaired, over .08, and care and control are becoming quite ludicrous johnnyg. One of the latest attempts by defense to roil the issue is their desire to bring to court the person who boxes supplies for the datamaster to ensure there is no skulduggery at the company to help the police. Likewise with calling to court the person(s) who manufacture supplies. The one that really confounds me is the ruling that you cannot take longer than 5 minutes to read the breath demand once the police officer has formed the reasonable grounds to suspect the driver is impaired. Sheer lunacy, coddled by the courts. A prime example of the slippery slope argument applied to lawyering for the accused, that the defense howls in outrage should the police be allowed some latitude.
Mind you the case is a Provincial Court case and not binding on other judges. However, if the facts are as they are reported above, I sense that it was probably an over reaction that there could be accusations of favoritism if it got out that there was no enforcement action taken by one officer on the other.
Then again perhaps the action was in line with an attempt to rid themselves of a problem child, who had become an albatross. Her taste in companions appears to be somewhat suspect.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
8 
15
This is a big grey area that I for one would like to see a little more clarity on.
Todays cars don’t go into motion if you don’t have the keys in the ignition. Charges like this against anyone are pretty lame.
Personally, a drunk in the backseat of the car going down the road interferers with care and control more than this person didl
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
17 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
11 
28