R. v. Gillespie

R. v. Gillespie

The court found the informational component of s.10(b) was properly given on multiple occasions, there were no special circumstances or medical evidence showing the accused could not comprehend the caution or express a wish to contact counsel, and the accused did not request counsel; therefore no Charter breach occurred and the application to exclude evidence under s.24(2) was denied.

Citation
2013 NSSC 185
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: John Arthur Gillespie
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Operation and Breath Sample Refusal / Blended Voir Dire and Trial; Ruling on S.10(b) Charter Motion
Outcome
Application for declaration of s.10(b) Charter breach denied; application to exclude evidence under s.24(2) denied.
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel (s.10(b)), Breath Sample Refusal (s.254), Impaired Operation (s.253), Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2)), Police Duties on Arrest
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Right to Counsel (s.10(b)) Breath Sample Refusal (s.254) Impaired Operation (s.253) Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2)) Police Duties on Arrest

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

John Arthur Gillespie

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Operation and Breath Sample Refusal / Blended Voir Dire and Trial; Ruling on S.10(b) Charter Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's s.10(b) right to retain and instruct counsel was breached
  2. 2 Whether police had a duty to ensure accused understood s.10(b) or to take additional steps given his apparent non-responsiveness
  3. 3 Whether evidence obtained after the alleged breach should be excluded under s.24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the informational component of s.10(b) was properly given on multiple occasions, there were no special circumstances or medical evidence showing the accused could not comprehend the caution or express a wish to contact counsel, and the accused did not request counsel; therefore no Charter breach occurred and the application to exclude evidence under s.24(2) was denied.

Court Disposition

Application for declaration of s.10(b) Charter breach denied; application to exclude evidence under s.24(2) denied.

Orders

  • Declaration that s.10(b) was not breached denied
  • Order to exclude evidence under s.24(2) denied