R. v. Hardie

R. v. Hardie

Police failed to provide the informational component of s.10(b) by not advising of duty counsel or how to access it; the breach was complete and uncorrected, and on balancing under s.24(2) admission of the breath certificate would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, so the Certificate of a Qualified Technician was excluded and the s.253(1)(b) charge failed; however, based on observational and surrounding evidence the Crown proved impairment under s.253(1)(a) beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused was convicted of impaired driving.

Citation
2013 NSPC 101
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Trenna Lee Hardie
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial (blended Voir Dire); Oral Decision
Outcome
Accused found not guilty of s.253(1)(b); guilty of s.253(1)(a).
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel (s.10(b) Charter), Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2) Charter), Impaired Driving, Breathalyzer / Certificate of a Qualified Technician
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Right to Counsel (s.10(b) Charter) Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2) Charter) Impaired Driving Breathalyzer / Certificate of a Qualified Technician

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 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Trenna Lee Hardie

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial (blended Voir Dire); Oral Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police breached the informational component of s.10(b) by failing to inform accused of duty counsel and how to access it
  2. 2 Whether accused was denied opportunity to consult counsel of choice
  3. 3 Whether statements to police were voluntary and admissible

Ratio Decidendi

Police failed to provide the informational component of s.10(b) by not advising of duty counsel or how to access it; the breach was complete and uncorrected, and on balancing under s.24(2) admission of the breath certificate would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, so the Certificate of a Qualified Technician was excluded and the s.253(1)(b) charge failed; however, based on observational and surrounding evidence the Crown proved impairment under s.253(1)(a) beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused was convicted of impaired driving.

Court Disposition

Accused found not guilty of s.253(1)(b); guilty of s.253(1)(a).

Orders

  • Exclude Certificate of a Qualified Technician (breathalyzer certificate) under s.24(2) of the Charter
  • Acquit accused on charge contrary to Criminal Code s.253(1)(b)