R. v. Slaunwhite

R. v. Slaunwhite

The demand made by Cst. Peroni was unlawful because the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Peroni personally had reasonable grounds to suspect the accused had operated or had care or control of a vehicle within the preceding three hours; therefore the s.254(2) demand was invalid and the s.254(5) refusal charge could not stand.

Citation
2012 NSPC 103
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Kathleen Marie Slaunwhite
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Decision (provincial Court)
Outcome
Acquittal on s.254(5) count; earlier s.253(1)(a) count previously dismissed
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Approved Screening Device (asd) Demands, Reasonable Grounds for Demand, Refusal to Provide Breath Sample
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Impaired Driving Approved Screening Device (asd) Demands Reasonable Grounds for Demand Refusal to Provide Breath Sample

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Kathleen Marie Slaunwhite

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Decision (provincial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the demand officer had reasonable grounds under s.254(2) to suspect alcohol in the accused and that she had operated or had care or control of a vehicle within the preceding three hours
  2. 2 Whether a demand made by an officer who was not the original investigator can rely on information communicated by other officers
  3. 3 Whether the accused intentionally refused to comply with a lawful s.254(2) demand

Ratio Decidendi

The demand made by Cst. Peroni was unlawful because the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Peroni personally had reasonable grounds to suspect the accused had operated or had care or control of a vehicle within the preceding three hours; therefore the s.254(2) demand was invalid and the s.254(5) refusal charge could not stand.

Court Disposition

Acquittal on s.254(5) count; earlier s.253(1)(a) count previously dismissed

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of charge contrary to s.254(5) of the Criminal Code
  • Earlier count under s.253(1)(a) had been dismissed