R. v. Coyle

R. v. Coyle

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Constable Walton was a qualified technician by rebuttable presumption based on uncontradicted evidence of his training and long practice; the tests were administered as soon as practicable; seven unsuccessful attempts where no air passed established the actus reus and contemporaneous mens rea of refusal despite a belated offer to blow; licence suspension under MVA s.279(a) was proven, therefore accused guilty on both counts.

Citation
2003 NSPC 35
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Catherine Coyle
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Accused found guilty of failure to provide a breath sample contrary to Criminal Code s.254(5) and guilty of driving while licence suspended contrary to Motor Vehicle Act s.287(2).
Legal Topics
Refusal to Provide Breath Sample, Qualified Technician Presumption, Driving While Licence Suspended, Right to Counsel, As Soon as Practicable Requirement
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Administrative Motor Vehicle Law Evidence Law Procedural/charter Issues Refusal to Provide Breath Sample Qualified Technician Presumption Driving While Licence Suspended Right to Counsel +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Catherine Coyle

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown proved officer was a "qualified technician" within meaning of s.254(1) Criminal Code by rebuttable presumption
  2. 2 Whether breath tests were administered as soon as practicable under s.254(3)
  3. 3 Whether accused's conduct constituted a refusal or a change of mind

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Constable Walton was a qualified technician by rebuttable presumption based on uncontradicted evidence of his training and long practice; the tests were administered as soon as practicable; seven unsuccessful attempts where no air passed established the actus reus and contemporaneous mens rea of refusal despite a belated offer to blow; licence suspension under MVA s.279(a) was proven, therefore accused guilty on both counts.

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty of failure to provide a breath sample contrary to Criminal Code s.254(5) and guilty of driving while licence suspended contrary to Motor Vehicle Act s.287(2).

Orders

  • Guilty verdict: Failure to comply with demand to provide breath sample (Criminal Code s.254(5))
  • Guilty verdict: Unlawfully driving while licence was suspended (Motor Vehicle Act s.287(2))