R. v. Sampson

R. v. Sampson

The court found a breach of s.10(b) because the accused was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel of choice before the first breath test when his request to contact Mr. Pink was refused; breath samples are conscriptive and, given the breach was serious and flagrant, their admission under s.24(2) would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and render the trial unfair, therefore the breathalyzer evidence was excluded.

Citation
2008 NSPC 32
Parties
Crown: R.; Accused: Gordon Sampson
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving (s.253(b) Cc) / Voir Dire (charter S.10(b) Implementational Rights)
Outcome
Defence voir dire motion allowed: s.10(b) breach found; breathalyzer evidence excluded under s.24(2).
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, Section 10(b) Charter, Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2), Counsel of Choice, Duty Counsel, Breathalyzer Evidence, Voir Dire
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Right to Counsel Section 10(b) Charter Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2) Counsel of Choice Duty Counsel +2 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

R.

Crown

Gordon Sampson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving (s.253(b) Cc) / Voir Dire (charter S.10(b) Implementational Rights)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police breached s.10(b) by denying opportunity to consult counsel of choice
  2. 2 Whether breathalyzer readings are conscriptive and should be excluded under s.24(2)
  3. 3 Whether the accused had been afforded a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel of choice before the first test

Ratio Decidendi

The court found a breach of s.10(b) because the accused was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel of choice before the first breath test when his request to contact Mr. Pink was refused; breath samples are conscriptive and, given the breach was serious and flagrant, their admission under s.24(2) would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and render the trial unfair, therefore the breathalyzer evidence was excluded.

Court Disposition

Defence voir dire motion allowed: s.10(b) breach found; breathalyzer evidence excluded under s.24(2).

Orders

  • Declaration that the accused's s.10(b) implementational rights were breached
  • Exclude the breathalyzer certificates/readings from evidence pursuant to s.24(2) of the Charter