R. v. Morris

R. v. Morris

Police breached s.10(b) by failing to inform the accused of the right to counsel before eliciting the refusal; the refusal is therefore evidence obtained in the chain of events of the Charter breach and, balancing fairness, seriousness and institutional integrity, must be excluded under s.24(2) which required acquittal on the refusal charge; separate indicia and contextual evidence however proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt under s.253(a), warranting conviction for impaired driving.

Citation
2006 NSPC 50
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: James Robert Morris
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial (voir Dire on S.10(b) and Final Verdict)
Outcome
Refusal to provide breath sample excluded and accused acquitted on s.254(5); accused convicted of impaired driving under s.253(a).
Legal Topics
Section 254(5) Refusal to Provide Breath Sample, Section 253(a) Impaired Driving, Section 10(b) Right to Counsel, Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Traffic Safety Law Section 254(5) Refusal to Provide Breath Sample Section 253(a) Impaired Driving Section 10(b) Right to Counsel Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

James Robert Morris

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial (voir Dire on S.10(b) and Final Verdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant's s.10(b) right to counsel was breached prior to the breath demand refusal and whether that refusal is admissible
  2. 2 Whether the Crown adduced sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt impairment contrary to s.253(a) of the Criminal Code

Ratio Decidendi

Police breached s.10(b) by failing to inform the accused of the right to counsel before eliciting the refusal; the refusal is therefore evidence obtained in the chain of events of the Charter breach and, balancing fairness, seriousness and institutional integrity, must be excluded under s.24(2) which required acquittal on the refusal charge; separate indicia and contextual evidence however proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt under s.253(a), warranting conviction for impaired driving.

Court Disposition

Refusal to provide breath sample excluded and accused acquitted on s.254(5); accused convicted of impaired driving under s.253(a).

Orders

  • Evidence of refusal to provide a breath sample excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter; charge under s.254(5) dismissed
  • Convicted of operating a motor vehicle while impaired contrary to s.253(a) of the Criminal Code