R. v. Thorburn

R. v. Thorburn

The court found the total delay (first sample 64 minutes after the stop, including a 24‑minute interval after transfer to the technician) was not unreasonable or prejudicial in the circumstances, the Crown complied with statutory notice and admissibility requirements for the technician's certificate, and therefore the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's BAC exceeded the legal limit (s.253(b)); however there was insufficient evidence of driving performance to prove impairment (s.253(a)).

Citation
2001 NSPC 3
Parties
Crown: R.; Accused: Donald Anthony Thorburn
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Provincial Court Decision (trial Judgment)
Outcome
Convicted of offence contrary to Criminal Code s.253(b) (exceeding legal blood alcohol limit); Acquitted of offence contrary to Criminal Code s.253(a) (impaired driving)
Legal Topics
Driving With Excess Blood Alcohol, Impaired Driving, Admissibility of Breathalyzer Evidence, Timing "as Soon as Practicable"
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Evidence Law Driving With Excess Blood Alcohol Impaired Driving Admissibility of Breathalyzer Evidence Timing "as Soon as Practicable"

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Crown

Donald Anthony Thorburn

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Provincial Court Decision (trial Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were the breath samples taken as soon as practicable?
  2. 2 Can the Crown rely on the presumption in s.258(1)(c) given the unexplained delay?
  3. 3 Did the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the total delay (first sample 64 minutes after the stop, including a 24‑minute interval after transfer to the technician) was not unreasonable or prejudicial in the circumstances, the Crown complied with statutory notice and admissibility requirements for the technician's certificate, and therefore the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's BAC exceeded the legal limit (s.253(b)); however there was insufficient evidence of driving performance to prove impairment (s.253(a)).

Court Disposition

Convicted of offence contrary to Criminal Code s.253(b) (exceeding legal blood alcohol limit); Acquitted of offence contrary to Criminal Code s.253(a) (impaired driving)

Orders

  • Conviction entered for offence contrary to Criminal Code s.253(b)
  • Acquittal entered for offence contrary to Criminal Code s.253(a)