Regina v. Blume

Regina v. Blume

Because the accused initially asserted his s.10(b) right and his remark at the detachment did not amount to a clear and unequivocal waiver, police were required to give the supplementary Prosper warning; the failure to do so breached s.10(b) and the breath evidence obtained is conscriptive and inadmissible.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 BCSC 924
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Carsten Wolfram Blume
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial (voir Dire on S.10(b) Charter)
Outcome
Charter s.10(b) breach found; breath evidence excluded as conscriptive and inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Section 10(b) Right to Counsel, Waiver of Charter Rights, Supplementary Warning (prosper), Admissibility and Exclusion Under S.24(2)
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Section 10(b) Right to Counsel Waiver of Charter Rights Supplementary Warning (prosper) Admissibility and Exclusion Under S.24(2)

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Carsten Wolfram Blume

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial (voir Dire on S.10(b) Charter)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police breached s.10(b) by failing to provide a supplementary Prosper warning after the accused initially asserted his right to counsel
  2. 2 Whether the accused's remark at the detachment constituted a clear and unequivocal waiver of the right to counsel
  3. 3 Whether the breathalyzer readings should be excluded as conscriptive evidence under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

Because the accused initially asserted his s.10(b) right and his remark at the detachment did not amount to a clear and unequivocal waiver, police were required to give the supplementary Prosper warning; the failure to do so breached s.10(b) and the breath evidence obtained is conscriptive and inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Charter s.10(b) breach found; breath evidence excluded as conscriptive and inadmissible.

Orders

  • Breath readings (110 mg/100ml and 100 mg/100ml) excluded from evidence as conscriptive and inadmissible.
  • Proceedings to be continued; counsel may arrange a continuation date with the trial coordinator.