R. v. MacFadden

R. v. MacFadden

The court held the ambulance questioning did not constitute detention at the time of the first answer, so the initial statements were admissible; however the blood sample demand was unlawful because the officer who demanded it lacked sufficient evidence to form reasonable and probable grounds as to the time of the offence and failed to make requisite inquiries into the accused's physical condition to justify blood over breath under s.254(3), so the blood evidence was excluded under s.24(2).

Citation
2006 NSSC 32
Parties
Crown/respondent: Her Majesty The Queen; Defendant/applicant: Jason MacFadden
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (charter Application Pre Trial)
Outcome
Blood sample evidence excluded; statements made in ambulance admitted.
Legal Topics
Detention, Right to Counsel, Breath Vs Blood Demands, Section 254 Criminal Code, Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Rights Evidence Law Procedural Law Detention Right to Counsel Breath Vs Blood Demands Section 254 Criminal Code +1 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown/respondent

Jason MacFadden

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (charter Application Pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was detained during ambulance questioning such that s.10(b) and a police caution were required
  2. 2 Whether statements made in the ambulance must be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether police had reasonable and probable grounds under s.254(3) to demand a blood sample rather than a breath sample

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the ambulance questioning did not constitute detention at the time of the first answer, so the initial statements were admissible; however the blood sample demand was unlawful because the officer who demanded it lacked sufficient evidence to form reasonable and probable grounds as to the time of the offence and failed to make requisite inquiries into the accused's physical condition to justify blood over breath under s.254(3), so the blood evidence was excluded under s.24(2).

Court Disposition

Blood sample evidence excluded; statements made in ambulance admitted.

Orders

  • Exclude results of blood alcohol analyses under s.24(2) of the Charter
  • Admit statements made by the accused in the ambulance (not excluded)