R. v. Robertson

R. v. Robertson

Although the officer had reasonable suspicion and the accused had care and control, the 26–31 minute delay before making the ASD demand was not justified by the circumstances and therefore the demand was not made forthwith; an invalid demand cannot ground an offence for refusal, so the accused must be acquitted.

Citation
2007 NSPC 32
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Christopher Lee Robertson
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal (impaired Driving/refusal to Comply With ASD Demand) / Trial Decision (provincial Court)
Outcome
Not guilty
Legal Topics
Approved Screening Device (asd) Demand, Reasonable Suspicion, Care and Control, Forthwith Requirement, Refusal to Provide Breath Sample
Source Language
English

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Christopher Lee Robertson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (impaired Driving/refusal to Comply With ASD Demand) / Trial Decision (provincial Court)

  1. 1 Whether there was alcohol in the accused's body
  2. 2 Whether the accused had care and control of the vehicle
  3. 3 Whether the ASD demand was made forthwith (as soon as reasonably possible)

Ratio Decidendi

Although the officer had reasonable suspicion and the accused had care and control, the 26–31 minute delay before making the ASD demand was not justified by the circumstances and therefore the demand was not made forthwith; an invalid demand cannot ground an offence for refusal, so the accused must be acquitted.

Court Disposition

Not guilty

Orders

  • Defendant found not guilty; charge dismissed