R v. Jaycox,

R v. Jaycox,

The trial judge had jurisdiction to read in limiting words to s.254(2) to cure an overbreadth s.8 violation; the judicially amended provision was the appropriate remedy and applies to the respondent (including retroactively); the trial judge erred in failing to apply the remedied s.254(2) to the facts, erred in finding a s.10(b) infringement because the Thomsen suspension continues to apply given the unchanged 'forthwith' requirement, and therefore the respondent's acquittal for refusing an ASD demand was set aside and a conviction entered.

Citation
2011 BCSC 662
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Deborah Ann Jaycox
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal From Provincial Court / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; trial judge's acquittal for failing to comply with an ASD demand set aside; conviction entered for refusal to comply with ASD demand; sentence imposed
Legal Topics
ASD Demand, S.254(2), S.254(5), S.10(b) Right to Counsel, Thomsen Suspension, Reading in Remedy, Retrospective Effect of Remedies, S.8 Unreasonable Search and Seizure, S.1 Justification
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Constitutional Law Search and Seizure Administrative Law ASD Demand S.254(2) S.254(5) +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Deborah Ann Jaycox

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal From Provincial Court / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.254(2) violated s.8 of the Charter and whether a reading-in remedy was appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to read in and whether the judicially amended provision operated retroactively
  3. 3 Whether the Thomsen suspension of the s.10(b) right to counsel applies to s.254(2) as amended and after judicial reading-in

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge had jurisdiction to read in limiting words to s.254(2) to cure an overbreadth s.8 violation; the judicially amended provision was the appropriate remedy and applies to the respondent (including retroactively); the trial judge erred in failing to apply the remedied s.254(2) to the facts, erred in finding a s.10(b) infringement because the Thomsen suspension continues to apply given the unchanged 'forthwith' requirement, and therefore the respondent's acquittal for refusing an ASD demand was set aside and a conviction entered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; trial judge's acquittal for failing to comply with an ASD demand set aside; conviction entered for refusal to comply with ASD demand; sentence imposed

Orders

  • Order setting aside the respondent's acquittal for the offence contrary to s.254(5) and entering a guilty verdict pursuant to s.822(1) of the Criminal Code
  • Impose mandatory minimum fine of $1,000 pursuant to s.255(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code