REVscene Automotive Forum - Driver who ran over flaggers in Burnaby found not criminally responsible

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Auto Chat (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-auto-chat_173/)

- - Driver who ran over flaggers in Burnaby found not criminally responsible (https://www.revscene.net/forums/716724-driver-who-ran-over-flaggers-burnaby-found-not-criminally-responsible.html)

Driver who ran over flaggers in Burnaby found not criminally responsible

I remember reading about this when it first happened.

Honestly pretty much WTF... I understand that yes, there are people that suffer from mental illness, it is serious and we should do everything we can to help them.

She can still drive... like WTF, how is that "safe for the public".

This just makes my blood boil.

TLDR

June 2017
Women runs down not 1, but 2 flaggers
Leaves the Scene
Punches another person at skytrain station

July 2017
Burnaby RCMP lays down charges

Jan 2020
Judge rule women was "suffering mental breakdown at a time", not criminally responsible

Original Video:

Spoiler!

Quote:

Driver who ran over flaggers in Burnaby found not criminally responsible

Judge rules mental disorder rendered Brenda Aregay incapable of understanding her actions and that they were wrong.

A woman who ran over two flaggers at a Burnaby road-construction site in June 2017 and then assaulted one of her own children and a passerby outside a local SkyTrain station has been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

A video showing Brenda Aregay mowing down a flagger with her white SUV on 10th Avenue near Kingsway and then driving off sparked outrage online after it was posted on social media in June 2017.

The 38-year-old had, in fact, gone on to run over another flagger a couple of blocks down the road moments later, according to an agreed statement of facts presented in Vancouver Provincial Court on Dec. 17.

‘Meltdown of some sort’

On the morning of June 28, 2017, paving work had narrowed 10th Avenue between 13th and 15th Streets down to one lane of alternating traffic.

Witnesses said Aregay pulled her white SUV out of a lineup of traffic into the lane closed for paving and then stopped in front of a flagger, gripping her steering wheel and staring either straight ahead or down at the console of her vehicle.

One witness said he heard loud music playing inside the SUV.

Three workers at the site tried to get her attention, but she didn’t respond, according to the statement of facts.

She looked angry and distraught, they said.

At one point, flagging supervisor Tracey Honaizer called out for someone to call 911 because something seemed to be wrong with Aregay.

“She’s having a meltdown of some sort,” Honaizer said.

Moments later, as Honaizer was allowing traffic to flow, Aregay started to pull back into the line of traffic.

Honaizer turned to the SUV with her stop sign held high, but Aregay kept going, knocking Honaizer to the ground and driving over her legs.

Two blocks away, flagger Derek Walker heard over the radio that there had been an accident.

Another driver pointed out Aregay’s SUV in a line of stopped traffic, saying it had just run over a flagger.

Walker noted traffic cones dragging under the vehicle.

Then he saw the SUV make a “quick back-and-forth maneuver” to get out of line and accelerate towards him.

“Walker was looking at Aregay straight in the eye,” read the statement of facts. “He raised his arms and then tried to dive out of the way, but the front passenger side of the SUV struck his left knee and then the SUV ran over his left ankle. As the SUV drove away, a semi-truck tried to block it. The SUV drove up and over the curb to get around the semi and keep driving.”

Aregay was later arrested outside the Edmonds SkyTrain station after a woman she had punched and kicked on the sidewalk outside called police.

Two people said they had also witnessed Aregay hit and slap one of her own two children, who were with her outside the station.

The SUV was parked a short distance away.

Aregay was charged with two counts of assault with a weapon (her SUV), two counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, two counts of leaving the scene of an accident and two counts of assault.

At a hearing on Dec. 17, the counts related to leaving the scene were dropped and Aregay pleaded not guilty to the rest.

Not criminally responsible

Crown prosecutor Mark Myhre and defence lawyer Michael Beckett both submitted Aregay should be found not criminally responsible because she had been in the grips of a psychotic episode that had rendered her incapable of understanding the consequences her actions or that they were wrong.

Their position was backed up by a report by forensic psychiatrist Dr. Todd Tomita.

“Although Ms. Aregay was able to drive her vehicle,” Tomita wrote, “in her psychotic state, it is unlikely that she was able to appreciate the physical consequences of her actions in hitting Ms. Honaizer, Mr. Walker or her daughter.”

Aregay couldn’t remember all of the events in the agreed statement of facts or reconstruct her emotional and psychological state at the time, according to Tomita’s report.

Along with the psychiatrist’s report, Myhre introduced videos of the incidents and audio recordings of Aregay’s time in the back of a police vehicle on the way to the Burnaby RCMP detachment. Aregay could be heard yelling obscenities, giggling, singing and making disjointed statements about such things as demons, about being Jehovah and about helicopters that kept following her.

She was eventually taken to Burnaby Hospital, where she was committed under the Mental Health Act.

Myhre noted Aregay had already been diagnosed with schizophrenia and this was her third time being committed.

Victim impact

Honaizer, who sustained a fractured skull and brain bleed when she was hit, said she didn’t understand “how people with mental illness are allowed a driver’s licence.”

“I deal with angry motorists, working in all sorts of weather,” she said in a victim impact statement she read out at the hearing, “and now I have to worry about people not in their right mind.”

Honaizer said the accident changed her life forever, leaving her in severe pain and unable to work.

Because of her condition, she said she had felt like a burden to her father in the last years of his life.

“This accident financially ruined me, mentally destroyed me and physically broke me,” Honaizer said.

B.C. Provincial Court Judge Reginald Harris said the two flaggers had been “sadly and unfortunately” involved in Aregay’s psychotic episode and that the court “feels badly.”

“I know today will not bring you peace or closure, but there’s nothing that I could say or do that would change that,” he said to Honaizer.

Rare cases

In the end, Harris ruled Aregay was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

He pointed out that “high calibre and high quality” evidence had been presented to support his conclusion and that such cases are rare.

“On a daily basis, or almost daily, this court deals with numerous persons who suffer from mental health issues,” Harris said. “It’s a rare finding of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder. It’s a finding that’s not taken lightly. It’s a finding that is based upon all of the evidence and with the assistance of a forensic psychiatrist; moreover, it’s a high hurdle to reach.”

Aregay has had a driver’s licence since 1998, according to Myrhe, and, until the June 2017 incident, she had had only two violations on her record (speeding in a school zone and failing to wear a seatbelt), both from the same day in 2012.

Aregay was initially banned from even being in the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle while on bail, but she successfully applied to have her bail conditions varied less than a year later to allow her to drive to and from work with written permission from her bail supervisor.

That order was changed again during the Dec. 17 hearing, when Harris agreed to remove references to the employment restriction.

Aregay is still banned from driving between midnight and 6 a.m.

Myrhe noted Aregay has had no difficulty abiding by the terms of her bail and that she has been seeing a psychiatrist once every two months.

During their last meeting on Nov. 15, that psychiatrist wrote a letter saying Aregay had regained “full functioning” and her schizophrenia was in full remission.

Myrhe said she intends to have monthly injections of antipsychotic medication.

Aregay’s case will now go before the B.C. Review Board, a tribunal that makes and reviews orders for people found not criminally responsible for offences because of mental disorder.

The board can make one of three orders: an absolute discharge, a conditional discharge or detention in a hospital.

The Review Board is required to conduct a hearing within 45 days of a ruling of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Source:
https://www.burnabynow.com/news/driv...ble-1.24046085

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-wo...gers-1.3500833

I'm sure she's getting sued personally for injuries.

If she's mentally unfit enough to not be responsible for her actions then she's mentally unfit to operate a vehicle and mentally unfit to care for children.

^Our laws is so fucked up. I'm already furious that this person is not getting charged criminally, but at least ban her from driving. Where the fuck is the logic?

Woah... I thought, ok courts were harsh but at least she doesn't have a vehicle and is in the mental hospital. That imo is worse than a jail sentence. Then I read the end of the article. Driving again and 99% sure will be a full discharge. That is very upsetting to read. I can't even imagine being in the position of the flaggers.

Psychotic episodes usually have triggers. That flagger lady probably triggered her somehow, she seemed pretty snobby.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowda9 (Post 8970464)

Psychotic episodes usually have triggers. That flagger lady probably triggered her somehow, she seemed pretty snobby.

Yeah that's great and all but there's a shit load of things that can trigger you while driving, yet she's still allowed to drive?

That flagger was way over the top. I bet her employee handbook doesn't tell her to stand in front of a vehicle charging right at her. Both were not normal.

if she was triggered...she'd be very high risk, given the attitudes vancouver drivers/pedestrians here

very surprised she's still allowed to drive, nothing stated that it can't happen again

Triggers can be very specific too. So you can't just ban all ppl with mental issues from driving

Canada sucks!

Only the bad win

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidNguyen (Post 8970470)

Canada sucks!

Only the bad win

Right... FailFish

If she's supposed to be in meds and isn't/wasn't taking them, shouldn't that be considered criminally negligent?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidNguyen (Post 8970470)

Canada sucks!

Only the bad win

If you think Canada sucks, I enoucrage you to vist many parts of Asia, Africa and Middle East.

We have it REALLY REALLY good.

people with mental issues tend to be much more sensitive to things. So things that trigger you, would trigger them 10x more. Plus in that footage, the camera man seemed like he was almost even egging her on. Going "Oh she's going to do it, shes going to run you over!" Man I would probably ran that bish over. jk

Quote:

Originally Posted by trollface (Post 8970451)

I'm sure she's getting sued personally for injuries.

The damage is way less if she was not found guilty criminally.

She doesn't seem to care about herself her family or anything for that matter. All she has to do is declare bankruptcy. Have fun trying to sue someone with no legal asset.

Quote:

Originally Posted by underscore (Post 8970457)

If she's mentally unfit enough to not be responsible for her actions then she's mentally unfit to operate a vehicle and mentally unfit to care for children.

Well, at the time she was mentally unfit. As it states in the article she's in full remission and is getting regular treatment for her condition including medication and regular counselling. If she's in a "normal" state now (and presumably has been for some time) and is getting monitored regularly why should she be restricted from operating a vehicle or caring for her children?

I'm actually more interested in what led to her having the psychotic episode as she was committed to a hospital for a third time as a result of this incident. She was 36 at the time of the incident so 3 commitments is no small thing. What type of mental health support was she getting prior to this? Was it insufficient? Was she negligent? Did it take something like this kind of incident to get her the car she needed or was it always available and not being used?

Quote:

Originally Posted by supafamous (Post 8970498)

Normally I would tend to agree, but this is the part that makes me disagree:

Quote:

Originally Posted by supafamous (Post 8970498)

I'm actually more interested in what led to her having the psychotic episode as she was committed to a hospital for a third time as a result of this incident. She was 36 at the time of the incident so 3 commitments is no small thing. What type of mental health support was she getting prior to this? Was it insufficient? Was she negligent? Did it take something like this kind of incident to get her the car she needed or was it always available and not being used?

3 times she was committed, plus who knows how many other incidents she wasn't committed for. If it was the care she was given, then it was screwed up 3 times so I sure as heck wouldn't be confident it's going to be correct now. If she was negligent, then she was negligent at least 3 times before which makes me extremely doubtful she won't be negligent again.

The fact that she was pushing to be able to drive again less than a year later seems concerning to me as well. What kind of person would even want to drive again after nearly killing 2 people?

It’s strange because my sister is a brain scan tech and she regularly takes people’s licenses away for psychotic behaviour or things they pick up during the scans.... how is it that this woman has fallen through the cracks so easily despite very public examples of cognitive issues?

...... dude there’s gotta be a million of those Corollas in the lower mainland. Serious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by is350 (Post 8970518)

Didn't mean to witch hunt but I found this lady on fb.

Just so that everyone here can protect themselves, now she's driving a silver corolla sedan (2014 to 2019 MY).

I give Toyota and Lexus drivers a wide berth anyways. Worst brand of drivers out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by underscore (Post 8970509)

Normally I would tend to agree, but this is the part that makes me disagree:

3 times she was committed, plus who knows how many other incidents she wasn't committed for. If it was the care she was given, then it was screwed up 3 times so I sure as heck wouldn't be confident it's going to be correct now. If she was negligent, then she was negligent at least 3 times before which makes me extremely doubtful she won't be negligent again.

The fact that she was pushing to be able to drive again less than a year later seems concerning to me as well. What kind of person would even want to drive again after nearly killing 2 people?

Yeah, I can see that POV. I think the article leaves out too much information on her to make a judgement about whether her still being able to drive is fair or not. There's some disturbing information given without a lot of context (negligence? lack of support? Does she feel remorse?). We lack context on why she asked/fought to be able to drive again - was it because she has a job and family she needs to transport (maybe she has no help which is part of the problem) or was it because she doesn't give a shit about what she did?

if you got young kids to drive around of course you're gonna fight to keep your license

as long as her license is under the condition of getting reassessed regularly and if she skips these appointments, her privilege is taken away

she had a breakdown, i hope she learned from it

Quote:

Originally Posted by fliptuner (Post 8970485)

If she's supposed to be in meds and isn't/wasn't taking them, shouldn't that be considered criminally negligent?

our medical system is considered quite backwards in many ways and probably had a fair blame in this

too many armchair psychiatrist/judges on the internet

Quote:

Originally Posted by is350 (Post 8970518)

Didn't mean to witch hunt but I found this lady on fb.

Just so that everyone here can protect themselves, now she's driving a silver corolla sedan (2014 to 2019 MY).

Wow thanks for keeping the Vancouver streets safe.