R. v. Sarson

R. v. Sarson

Police failed to provide the accused access to counsel prior to compelled forensic blood sampling, infringing s.10(b); under s.24(2) exclusion is required because the breach was serious, the impact on the accused was significant and the evidence was obtained for forensic purposes (no competing medical need); consequentially blood analyses and police-obtained statements (medevac and later recorded) are excluded, but spontaneous admissions to a civilian witness (Mr. MacMillan) are admissible as highly probative and not unfairly prejudicial.

Citation
2015 NSPC 41
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: John Michael Blake Sarson
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving (criminal Code) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Evidence (pre Trial/trial Stage)
Outcome
Blood analyses and police-obtained statements excluded; statements to civilian witness admitted.
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel S.10(b), Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2), Voluntariness of Statements, Forensic Blood Sampling, Admission Against Interest
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law (charter) Evidence Law Right to Counsel S.10(b) Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2) Voluntariness of Statements Forensic Blood Sampling Admission Against Interest

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecution

John Michael Blake Sarson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving (criminal Code) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Evidence (pre Trial/trial Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police violated s.10(b) by failing to provide access to counsel prior to compelled blood sampling
  2. 2 Whether blood analyses obtained after the denial of counsel must be excluded under s.24(2)
  3. 3 Whether the video-recorded statement given the next day was admissible or tainted by the prior Charter breach

Ratio Decidendi

Police failed to provide the accused access to counsel prior to compelled forensic blood sampling, infringing s.10(b); under s.24(2) exclusion is required because the breach was serious, the impact on the accused was significant and the evidence was obtained for forensic purposes (no competing medical need); consequentially blood analyses and police-obtained statements (medevac and later recorded) are excluded, but spontaneous admissions to a civilian witness (Mr. MacMillan) are admissible as highly probative and not unfairly prejudicial.

Court Disposition

Blood analyses and police-obtained statements excluded; statements to civilian witness admitted.

Orders

  • Exclude results of chemical blood analyses obtained after the denial of access to counsel
  • Exclude the audio-and-video-recorded statement given to police the day after the incident