R. v. Hennigar

R. v. Hennigar

The court found the officer formed a reasonable suspicion based on odour, slurred speech and red eyes and properly administered the ASD and subsequent breath testing within the statutory standards: the ASD demand was 'forthwith' once suspicion was established and the breath tests were conducted 'as soon as practicable' given equipment issues and the requirement to afford counsel; therefore the statutory and Charter requirements were met and the breath results were admissible, supporting a conviction under s.253(1)(b).

Citation
2009 NSPC 42
Parties
Crown: R.; Accused: Brady Hennigar
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Judgment (conviction)
Outcome
Defendant found guilty of driving with blood alcohol over legal limit under s.253(1)(b) Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Approved Screening Device (asd) and Data Master Breath Test, Reasonable Suspicion, Right to Counsel, Delay and 'as Soon as Practicable', Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Impaired Driving Approved Screening Device (asd) and Data Master Breath Test Reasonable Suspicion Right to Counsel Delay and 'as Soon as Practicable' +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Crown

Brady Hennigar

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Judgment (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the officer had reasonable grounds to demand an ASD under s.254(2)
  2. 2 Whether the ASD demand was made 'forthwith' as required by s.254(2)
  3. 3 Whether the screening device was properly identified

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the officer formed a reasonable suspicion based on odour, slurred speech and red eyes and properly administered the ASD and subsequent breath testing within the statutory standards: the ASD demand was 'forthwith' once suspicion was established and the breath tests were conducted 'as soon as practicable' given equipment issues and the requirement to afford counsel; therefore the statutory and Charter requirements were met and the breath results were admissible, supporting a conviction under s.253(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty of driving with blood alcohol over legal limit under s.253(1)(b) Criminal Code

Orders

  • Defendant found guilty of driving over legal blood alcohol limit (s.253(1)(b))
  • Certificate of Qualified Technician prepared and served