R. v. Zinck

R. v. Zinck

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Constable Payne was designated by the Attorney General as a qualified technician within the meaning of s.254; without proof of that designation the Crown could not rely on Payne's opinion to establish that the accused failed to provide breath samples suitable for analysis, and the remaining evidence of impairment was equivocal; therefore the accused must be acquitted.

Citation
2003 NSPC 6
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Clarence Wade Zinck
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Decision (trial)
Outcome
Not guilty on both counts (acquitted)
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Refusal/failure to Provide Breath Sample, Designation of Qualified Technician, Admissibility of Breathalyzer Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Road Traffic Law Impaired Driving Refusal/failure to Provide Breath Sample Designation of Qualified Technician Admissibility of Breathalyzer Evidence

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Clarence Wade Zinck

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Decision (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Constable Michael Payne was a qualified technician designated by the Attorney General within the meaning of Criminal Code s.254
  2. 2 Whether the instrument used was an approved instrument and was functioning properly
  3. 3 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused failed to provide a breath sample suitable for analysis

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Constable Payne was designated by the Attorney General as a qualified technician within the meaning of s.254; without proof of that designation the Crown could not rely on Payne's opinion to establish that the accused failed to provide breath samples suitable for analysis, and the remaining evidence of impairment was equivocal; therefore the accused must be acquitted.

Court Disposition

Not guilty on both counts (acquitted)

Orders

  • Acquittal entered for failing to provide a breath sample contrary to Criminal Code s.254(5)
  • Acquittal entered for impaired driving contrary to Criminal Code s.253(a)