H.M.T.Q. v. Kohuch

H.M.T.Q. v. Kohuch

Court found that although the Prosper warning was not given in the precise required sequence (a breach), the accused received the informational component, repeatedly declined to contact counsel, and the Crown proved on the evidence that the breathalyzer results would have been obtained irrespective of the breach;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2000 BCSC 533
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Peter Andrew Kohuch
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Admissibility of Breathalyzer Evidence
Outcome
Breathalyzer evidence admitted; not excluded under s.24(2)
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel S.10(b), Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2), Prosper Warning, Breathalyzer Evidence, Waiver of Rights
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Charter Law Evidence Law Right to Counsel S.10(b) Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2) Prosper Warning Breathalyzer Evidence Waiver of Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Peter Andrew Kohuch

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Admissibility of Breathalyzer Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the breathalyzer evidence was obtained in breach of s.10(b) Charter rights
  2. 2 Whether the Prosper warning was properly given and whether any breach required exclusion under s.24(2)
  3. 3 Whether the Crown met its burden to prove the evidence would have been obtained regardless of the breach

Ratio Decidendi

Court found that although the Prosper warning was not given in the precise required sequence (a breach), the accused received the informational component, repeatedly declined to contact counsel, and the Crown proved on the evidence that the breathalyzer results would have been obtained irrespective of the breach; accordingly exclusion under s.24(2) was not warranted and the breathalyzer evidence was admitted.

Court Disposition

Breathalyzer evidence admitted; not excluded under s.24(2)

Orders

  • Breathalyzer readings admitted into evidence at trial