R. v. Robinson

R. v. Robinson

The judge found beyond reasonable doubt that Robinson, a trained and experienced police officer, knowingly consumed alcohol post-accident and deliberately misled police by understating his prior drinking and claiming two shots of vodka; he knew those statements would impede extrapolation of BAC and intended to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCSC 430
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Benjamin Montgomery Robinson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Obstruction of Justice (s.139(2) Criminal Code) / Trial; Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Guilty of wilful attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice contrary to s.139(2) Criminal Code.
Legal Topics
Obstruction of Justice, Post Accident Drinking, Mens Rea Specific Intent, Impaired Driving Investigation, Expert Evidence, Credibility
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Obstruction of Justice Post Accident Drinking Mens Rea Specific Intent Impaired Driving Investigation Expert Evidence Credibility

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Benjamin Montgomery Robinson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Obstruction of Justice (s.139(2) Criminal Code) / Trial; Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement that the accused drank two shots after the accident constituted an actus reus tending to obstruct justice
  2. 2 Whether the accused had the specific intent to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice
  3. 3 Whether post-accident drinking was the result of alcohol dependence or a deliberate act to mislead investigators

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found beyond reasonable doubt that Robinson, a trained and experienced police officer, knowingly consumed alcohol post-accident and deliberately misled police by understating his prior drinking and claiming two shots of vodka; he knew those statements would impede extrapolation of BAC and intended to obstruct the investigation, and the addiction explanation and expert evidence were given little weight, warranting conviction under s.139(2).

Court Disposition

Guilty of wilful attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice contrary to s.139(2) Criminal Code.

Orders

  • Convicted of attempt to obstruct justice contrary to s.139(2) Criminal Code
  • Reasons for judgment delivered March 23, 2012