R. v. Givens

R. v. Givens

The court held there was no Charter s.10(b) breach because the brief delay was consumed by continued lawful screening procedures and no secondary warning was required where the accused was not diligent in exercising the right; evidence on Counts 1 and 2 lacked sufficient reliability due to material discrepancies between the officer's trial testimony and contemporaneous notes so Crown failed to prove impairment or refusal at the screening device beyond a reasonable doubt; however the Crown proved Count 3 because the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to demand breath samples from a qualified technician and the accused unequivocally refused further samples, constituting an offence...

Citation
2009 BCSC 824
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Dale Berton Givens
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Not guilty on Counts 1 and 2; guilty on Count 3
Legal Topics
Section 254 Refusal, Section 253 Care or Control, Section 10(b) Right to Counsel, Roadside Screening Device, Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Police Notes Reliability
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Law Evidence Law Administrative Law Section 254 Refusal Section 253 Care or Control Section 10(b) Right to Counsel Roadside Screening Device +2 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Dale Berton Givens

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.10(b) Charter rights were breached by delay in providing right to counsel
  2. 2 Whether a secondary warning was required after accused declined to contact counsel at station
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of observations made during roadside screening

Ratio Decidendi

The court held there was no Charter s.10(b) breach because the brief delay was consumed by continued lawful screening procedures and no secondary warning was required where the accused was not diligent in exercising the right; evidence on Counts 1 and 2 lacked sufficient reliability due to material discrepancies between the officer's trial testimony and contemporaneous notes so Crown failed to prove impairment or refusal at the screening device beyond a reasonable doubt; however the Crown proved Count 3 because the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to demand breath samples from a qualified technician and the accused unequivocally refused further samples, constituting an offence...

Court Disposition

Not guilty on Counts 1 and 2; guilty on Count 3

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty on Count 1 (s.253(a))
  • Accused found not guilty on Count 2 (s.254(2)) and guilty on Count 3 (s.254(3)/(5))