R. v. Gibson
The toxicologist's credible range (40–105 mg/100 ml), taken together with the accused's credible drinking evidence, tended to show the accused's BAC could have been below 80 mg/100 ml at the time of driving, thereby rebutting the presumption of identity under s.258(1)(d.1) and leaving a reasonable doubt; result: acquittal.
- Citation
- 2004 NSPC 40
- Parties
- Crown (prosecution): Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Robert Albert Gibson
- Court
- Nova Scotia Provincial Court
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 21 April 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial (acquittal)
- Outcome
- Not guilty; acquitted
- Legal Topics
- Presumption of Identity, Interpretation of S.258(1)(d.1), Breath Analysis Evidence, Straddle Cases, Reasonable Doubt
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Crown (prosecution)
Robert Albert Gibson
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial (acquittal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Proper interpretation of the phrase "evidence tending to show" in s.258(1)(d.1) of the Criminal Code
- 2 Credibility of the accused's evidence about his pattern of alcohol consumption
- 3 Whether the toxicologist's range of blood alcohol concentrations rebuts the presumption of identity and shows the accused's BAC was below 80 mg/100 ml at time of driving
Ratio Decidendi
The toxicologist's credible range (40–105 mg/100 ml), taken together with the accused's credible drinking evidence, tended to show the accused's BAC could have been below 80 mg/100 ml at the time of driving, thereby rebutting the presumption of identity under s.258(1)(d.1) and leaving a reasonable doubt; result: acquittal.
Court Disposition
Not guilty; acquitted
Orders
- Defendant found not guilty and acquitted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment