EDMONTON, AB (December 1, 2011): Solicitor General Jonathan Denis needs to explain his testimony in a 2007 driving under the influence court case.

According to a Provincial Court decision, Denis testified on behalf of the defence, who claimed that the Charter rights of their client, who gave a roadside blood sample above the legal limit, were violated. If that had been proven true in court, the impaired individual would have walked.

Denis is on record as an ardent supporter of Redford’s new impaired driving law, which treats motorists with a blood-alcohol level below the legal limit as guilty before proven innocent – a constitutionally questionable presumption.

In question period today, Wildrose Justice Critic Rob Anderson asked Denis to explain this apparent inconsistency.

“Given Minister Denis’s enthusiastic support for the new law that presumes Albertans under the legal limit are guilty,” said Anderson, “He needs to explain his testimony in court – which was used in support of an attempt to allow a driver above the legal limit to walk free based on claims that his Charter rights had been violated.”

Wildrose has proposed stronger enforcement of existing impaired driving legislation through increased check stops and stiffer penalties for drivers over the legal limit as an alternative to Redford’s proposed changes.

The Wildrose Caucus stands for free enterprise, less government, increased personal freedom and democracy.

-  30 –