R. v. Mattinson

R. v. Mattinson

The court found the interaction at the accused's door constituted psychological detention engaging s.10(b), excluded pre-arrest statements, and concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver and was impaired or over the legal limit given gaps in nexus, identification and unresolved issues about bolus drinking; accordingly the accused was acquitted.

Citation
2013 NSPC 36
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Dwayne Stewart Mattinson
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Judgment (acquittal)
Outcome
Accused acquitted of offences under s.253(1)(a) and s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving (s.253 Criminal Code), Section 10(b) Right to Counsel, Psychological Detention, Bolus Drinking and Breathalyzer Reliability, Identification of Driver, Admissibility of Statements
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Impaired Driving (s.253 Criminal Code) Section 10(b) Right to Counsel Psychological Detention Bolus Drinking and Breathalyzer Reliability Identification of Driver +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Dwayne Stewart Mattinson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Judgment (acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was detained for purposes of s.10(b) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether statements made prior to formal arrest were admissible
  3. 3 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the interaction at the accused's door constituted psychological detention engaging s.10(b), excluded pre-arrest statements, and concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver and was impaired or over the legal limit given gaps in nexus, identification and unresolved issues about bolus drinking; accordingly the accused was acquitted.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted of offences under s.253(1)(a) and s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Orders

  • Acquitted of both counts under s.253(1)(a) and s.253(1)(b).