R. v. Mullins

R. v. Mullins

Given the objective indicators of alcohol and the remote setting with unreliable in-vehicle systems, the officer's routing of identity, vehicle and safety checks through dispatch produced a justified eight-minute interval between forming reasonable suspicion and making the ASD demand; that delay was not unreasonable, the demand was proper, the accused intentionally refused, and the conviction under s.254(5) is lawful.

Citation
2015 NSPC 80
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Mitchell Daniel Kevin Mullins
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Blended Voir Dire and Conviction (oral Decision)
Outcome
Guilty (convicted under Section 254(5) of the Criminal Code)
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, ASD Demand, Right to Counsel, Search and Seizure, Section 254(5) Criminal Code
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Rights Evidence Impaired Driving ASD Demand Right to Counsel Search and Seizure Section 254(5) Criminal Code

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

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Mitchell Daniel Kevin Mullins

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Blended Voir Dire and Conviction (oral Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an ASD demand was made "forthwith" under s.254(2) of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the delay between formation of reasonable suspicion and the ASD demand infringed ss.8, 9 and 10 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the evidence of refusal should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

Given the objective indicators of alcohol and the remote setting with unreliable in-vehicle systems, the officer's routing of identity, vehicle and safety checks through dispatch produced a justified eight-minute interval between forming reasonable suspicion and making the ASD demand; that delay was not unreasonable, the demand was proper, the accused intentionally refused, and the conviction under s.254(5) is lawful.

Court Disposition

Guilty (convicted under Section 254(5) of the Criminal Code)

Orders

  • Convicted of an offence contrary to Section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.