R. v. MacDonnell

R. v. MacDonnell

On the voir dire the court found the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to demand breath samples based on the cumulative observations; the police reasonably attempted to contact the accused's counsel of choice and the accused accepted duty counsel so there was no s.10(b) breach; the post‑investigative detention was justified pending the accused's ability to understand release documents and was not arbitrary under s.9; weighing Grant factors, exclusion of breath readings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and the breath results are admissible.

Citation
2015 NSPC 69
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Victor Felix MacDonnell
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Voir Dire on Charter Applications; Oral Decision Admitting Breath Evidence
Outcome
Voir dire dismissed in favour of Crown: Charter challenges rejected; breath sample results admitted into evidence; proceedings to continue on charges under s.253(1)(a) and s.253(1)(b).
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Section 8 Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Section 9 Arbitrary Detention, Section 10(b) Right to Counsel, Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law (charter) Impaired Driving Section 8 Unreasonable Search and Seizure Section 9 Arbitrary Detention Section 10(b) Right to Counsel Section 24(2) Exclusion of 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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Victor Felix MacDonnell

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Voir Dire on Charter Applications; Oral Decision Admitting Breath Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the peace officer had reasonable and probable grounds to demand breath samples under s.254(3) (Section 8)
  2. 2 Whether the accused was denied access to counsel of choice (Section 10(b))
  3. 3 Whether the accused was arbitrarily detained post-investigation (Section 9)

Ratio Decidendi

On the voir dire the court found the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to demand breath samples based on the cumulative observations; the police reasonably attempted to contact the accused's counsel of choice and the accused accepted duty counsel so there was no s.10(b) breach; the post‑investigative detention was justified pending the accused's ability to understand release documents and was not arbitrary under s.9; weighing Grant factors, exclusion of breath readings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and the breath results are admissible.

Court Disposition

Voir dire dismissed in favour of Crown: Charter challenges rejected; breath sample results admitted into evidence; proceedings to continue on charges under s.253(1)(a) and s.253(1)(b).

Orders

  • Breath sample results admitted into evidence; voir dire applications dismissed