R. v. Rafuse

R. v. Rafuse

The police fulfilled their s.10(b) informational and implemental duties, the accused was not reasonably diligent in attempting to contact his counsel of choice, therefore there was no s.10(b) Charter breach and the evidence obtained is admissible.

Citation
2003 NSPC 53
Parties
Prosecution: R.; Accused: Danny Wade Rafuse
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving and Failure to Comply With Breath Demand / Voir Dire (s.24(2) Application) Decision on S.10(b) Charter Issue
Outcome
No Charter breach found (s.10(b)); evidence admitted on trial.
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel (s.10(b) Charter), Duty to Inform and Implement, Section 24(2) Exclusion Remedy, Breath Demand and Statutory Presumption (s.258(1)(c)(ii) Criminal Code), Reasonable Opportunity to Consult Counsel of Choice, Detainee Diligence Requirement
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Right to Counsel (s.10(b) Charter) Duty to Inform and Implement Section 24(2) Exclusion Remedy Breath Demand and Statutory Presumption (s.258(1)(c)(ii) Criminal Code) Reasonable Opportunity to Consult Counsel of Choice +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Prosecution

Danny Wade Rafuse

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving and Failure to Comply With Breath Demand / Voir Dire (s.24(2) Application) Decision on S.10(b) Charter Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police denied the accused the right to consult counsel of his choice contrary to s.10(b) Charter
  2. 2 Whether the accused was given a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel
  3. 3 Whether any evidence obtained should be excluded under s.24(2) Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The police fulfilled their s.10(b) informational and implemental duties, the accused was not reasonably diligent in attempting to contact his counsel of choice, therefore there was no s.10(b) Charter breach and the evidence obtained is admissible.

Court Disposition

No Charter breach found (s.10(b)); evidence admitted on trial.

Orders

  • Evidence obtained as a result of the detention and breath demand is admitted; matter to proceed to trial.