Driver charged in crash that killed 42-year-old woman in Nanaimo, B.C.
A 47-year-old man has been charged with dangerous driving and impaired driving causing death following a two-vehicle collision last year on Vancouver Island.
Samuel Brody Taylor, born in 1978, was arrested and charged this week in relation to the collision that killed a 42-year-old woman in Nanaimo, according to court records and the RCMP.
A statement from the Nanaimo RCMP on Friday says Taylor was located and arrested on June 17, one day after the charges were approved by provincial prosecutors.
Police were called to the crash on the Nanaimo Parkway, between the Dunster Road overpass and the Doumont Road bridge, at approximately 8:30 p.m. on August 10, 2024.
Joy Pecknold, the one occupant of a northbound SUV, died in hospital after her vehicle was struck head-on by a dark-coloured sedan. The man driving the sedan was taken to hospital with serious but non-life-threatening injuries, according to police.
Witnesses told investigators the car crossed a median into oncoming traffic before colliding with the SUV.
The Nanaimo Parkway was closed in both directions for several hours following the collision.
Taylor has been released from police custody pending his first scheduled appearance in Nanaimo provincial court on June 24.
'The victim's family were advised of Taylor's arrest,' the Nanaimo RCMP statement said. 'As the matter is before the courts, no further information will be released.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe
There is a growing backlash after the RCMP announced this month it is investigating whether Canadian citizens involved with clashes in or around Israel were in contravention of this country's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Amid outcry from Jewish groups, the force said it wasn't a criminal probe, but to 'collect, preserve and assess information' for potential future prosecutions. Foreign governments, such as Belgium and Brazil, have also opened investigations into their own citizens who served with the Israel Defense Forces. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Lt.-Col. (ret.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, suggests these are politically motivated probes. He has been retained by IDF soldiers who have been questioned by foreign government representatives. Hirsch has previously served as senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices in New York, lawyer for the Israel Defense Forces, director of the legal department for Palestinian Media Watch, senior military consultant for NGO Monitor, and adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Dave Gordon interviewed Hirsch for the National Post. What do you think motivates foreign governments who seek these investigations? I can't tell you exactly as to what their motivation is, but I believe that it's somewhere in the realms of political expediency, and internal demographic politics. It requires these governments to almost change what they've been doing traditionally, even to the point of potentially abandoning allies. Their voter base has changed. And so now you have a situation where you need to almost pander, to cater, to a more fringe population. In May, U.K. government lawyers told the High Court that there was no evidence Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, and that evidence exists of Israel making efforts to limit harm to civilians. If the government doesn't believe that war crimes are being committed, then obviously they won't then take that forward, and actively engage in an investigation of something that they don't believe is happening. But if the government is so prejudiced, and predisposed, that war crimes are being committed, then obviously you launch an investigation. What evidence would a foreign investigation need, to theoretically try a soldier in court? Video footage, forensic analysis, operational logs — all impartially examined. What they have is so weak and poor, it's impossible to say it's 'evidence.' I think it's just so circumstantial and flimsy, even imagined. Organizations are gathering information from social media, when IDF soldiers put up videos of their activities in the Gaza Strip, and those videos are predominantly taken out of context and given a criminal shade. They'll destroy a civilian building, which is a war crime, but clearly not if it's a military target. For example, a place where weapons were stored, where terrorists were encamped, that had tunnels going underneath it. All of these possible scenarios. And so the video itself shows absolutely nothing. Governments are looking at reports and statements from people who have left Gaza, and can say anything they want. This whole effort, really, is a huge waste of time, resources and energy. It's entirely impotent, because without knowing exactly what the military goal was in any given circumstance, there's no way you can actually assess the actions of the soldier. There's a legal mechanism that already exists in Israel, to prosecute soldiers who have broken laws? Without question. There is an entire investigative process. Everyone knows they exist. And yet this almost sanctimonious drive, seems to be to ignore that reality, and pushes for these ad hoc courts to somehow take charge. In media interviews, you contend that there is no formal support from the Israeli government for IDF (soldiers), to defend them against foreign investigations. Is that still the case? That still appears to be the case. There are certain ministries that are involved in a risk assessment, and are there to help, I think, the higher ranking officers. But my experience till now has been that the lower ranking soldiers find it very, very difficult to get any support whatsoever from these ministries, and that I fear is very dangerous. Of these Israeli departments which you criticize, are they aware of the shortcomings you speak of? So the difficulty is, that they don't know even the extent of the exposure that the soldiers are facing, and wouldn't know necessarily to be able to provide assistance to everyone in need. You're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of people. This is just a question of personnel and manpower. It's overwhelming right now, especially where we're busy fighting a war. On a government-to-government level, how is this issue being dealt with? There are discussions on all different types of levels, and without again getting into too much detail, I think in many cases, a lot of the work is being done diplomatically. The opening of an investigation is dependent on a government decision, rather than anyone presenting to a court with alleged evidence. That's already a very big step forward than what used to be the case in England, where any organization could claim that X had committed war crimes, submit any type of evidence they had to a local magistrate, and that magistrate could then issue an arrest warrant. With predominantly friendly governments, the hope is that they can be diplomatically persuaded, or dissuaded, from going down a certain path. Which steps should the Israeli government take to address these investigations? I think it needs to be a conglomerate of different actors, because the problem requires different solutions and different involvement. I would suggest a joint task force of the Justice Ministry, the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, each one contributing in their own unique way to providing the best support possible. And sometimes the support needed is relatively simple, just to say that that X person was not in active duty in any type of a position, that could be considered relevant, when the alleged war crimes happen. This interview has been edited for brevity. (National Post contacted the IDF spokesperson's unit and the spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and received no response.) Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our newsletters here .
Edmonton Journal
an hour ago
- Edmonton Journal
'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe
Article content There is a growing backlash after the RCMP announced this month it is investigating whether Canadian citizens involved with clashes in or around Israel were in contravention of this country's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Amid outcry from Jewish groups, the force said it wasn't a criminal probe, but to 'collect, preserve and assess information' for potential future prosecutions. Article content Foreign governments, such as Belgium and Brazil, have also opened investigations into their own citizens who served with the Israel Defense Forces. Lt.-Col. (ret.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, suggests these are politically motivated probes. He has been retained by IDF soldiers who have been questioned by foreign government representatives. Hirsch has previously served as senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices in New York, lawyer for the Israel Defense Forces, director of the legal department for Palestinian Media Watch, senior military consultant for NGO Monitor, and adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Dave Gordon interviewed Hirsch for the National Post. Article content I can't tell you exactly as to what their motivation is, but I believe that it's somewhere in the realms of political expediency, and internal demographic politics. It requires these governments to almost change what they've been doing traditionally, even to the point of potentially abandoning allies. Their voter base has changed. And so now you have a situation where you need to almost pander, to cater, to a more fringe population. In May, U.K. government lawyers told the High Court that there was no evidence Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, and that evidence exists of Israel making efforts to limit harm to civilians. If the government doesn't believe that war crimes are being committed, then obviously they won't then take that forward, and actively engage in an investigation of something that they don't believe is happening. Article content But if the government is so prejudiced, and predisposed, that war crimes are being committed, then obviously you launch an investigation. What evidence would a foreign investigation need, to theoretically try a soldier in court? Video footage, forensic analysis, operational logs — all impartially examined. What they have is so weak and poor, it's impossible to say it's 'evidence.' I think it's just so circumstantial and flimsy, even imagined. Organizations are gathering information from social media, when IDF soldiers put up videos of their activities in the Gaza Strip, and those videos are predominantly taken out of context and given a criminal shade. They'll destroy a civilian building, which is a war crime, but clearly not if it's a military target. For example, a place where weapons were stored, where terrorists were encamped, that had tunnels going underneath it. All of these possible scenarios. Article content And so the video itself shows absolutely nothing. Governments are looking at reports and statements from people who have left Gaza, and can say anything they want. This whole effort, really, is a huge waste of time, resources and energy. It's entirely impotent, because without knowing exactly what the military goal was in any given circumstance, there's no way you can actually assess the actions of the soldier. There's a legal mechanism that already exists in Israel, to prosecute soldiers who have broken laws? Without question. There is an entire investigative process. Everyone knows they exist. And yet this almost sanctimonious drive, seems to be to ignore that reality, and pushes for these ad hoc courts to somehow take charge. In media interviews, you contend that there is no formal support from the Israeli government for IDF (soldiers), to defend them against foreign investigations. Is that still the case? Article content That still appears to be the case. There are certain ministries that are involved in a risk assessment, and are there to help, I think, the higher ranking officers. But my experience till now has been that the lower ranking soldiers find it very, very difficult to get any support whatsoever from these ministries, and that I fear is very dangerous. Of these Israeli departments which you criticize, are they aware of the shortcomings you speak of? So the difficulty is, that they don't know even the extent of the exposure that the soldiers are facing, and wouldn't know necessarily to be able to provide assistance to everyone in need. You're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of people. This is just a question of personnel and manpower. It's overwhelming right now, especially where we're busy fighting a war. On a government-to-government level, how is this issue being dealt with? Article content There are discussions on all different types of levels, and without again getting into too much detail, I think in many cases, a lot of the work is being done diplomatically. The opening of an investigation is dependent on a government decision, rather than anyone presenting to a court with alleged evidence. That's already a very big step forward than what used to be the case in England, where any organization could claim that X had committed war crimes, submit any type of evidence they had to a local magistrate, and that magistrate could then issue an arrest warrant. With predominantly friendly governments, the hope is that they can be diplomatically persuaded, or dissuaded, from going down a certain path. Which steps should the Israeli government take to address these investigations? I think it needs to be a conglomerate of different actors, because the problem requires different solutions and different involvement. Latest National Stories
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe
There is a growing backlash after the RCMP announced this month it is investigating whether Canadian citizens involved with clashes in or around Israel were in contravention of this country's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Article content Amid outcry from Jewish groups, the force said it wasn't a criminal probe, but to 'collect, preserve and assess information' for potential future prosecutions. Article content Article content Article content Foreign governments, such as Belgium and Brazil, have also opened investigations into their own citizens who served with the Israel Defense Forces. Article content Article content Lt.-Col. (ret.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, suggests these are politically motivated probes. Article content He has been retained by IDF soldiers who have been questioned by foreign government representatives. Hirsch has previously served as senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices in New York, lawyer for the Israel Defense Forces, director of the legal department for Palestinian Media Watch, senior military consultant for NGO Monitor, and adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Article content I can't tell you exactly as to what their motivation is, but I believe that it's somewhere in the realms of political expediency, and internal demographic politics. It requires these governments to almost change what they've been doing traditionally, even to the point of potentially abandoning allies. Article content Article content Their voter base has changed. And so now you have a situation where you need to almost pander, to cater, to a more fringe population. Article content Article content In May, U.K. government lawyers told the High Court that there was no evidence Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, and that evidence exists of Israel making efforts to limit harm to civilians. If the government doesn't believe that war crimes are being committed, then obviously they won't then take that forward, and actively engage in an investigation of something that they don't believe is happening. Article content But if the government is so prejudiced, and predisposed, that war crimes are being committed, then obviously you launch an investigation. Article content Video footage, forensic analysis, operational logs — all impartially examined. What they have is so weak and poor, it's impossible to say it's 'evidence.' I think it's just so circumstantial and flimsy, even imagined.
