R. v. Babin

R. v. Babin

The court held that the accused was not detained for the purposes of the Code prior to the arrival of the qualified officer and therefore no s.10(b) breach occurred; the first officer was not obliged to make the screening demand; Constable Pelletier properly made the demand on reasonable grounds and the Crown proved refusal beyond a reasonable doubt, warranting conviction under s.254(5).

Citation
2004 NSPC 34
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty The Queen; Defendant: Allen Babin
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Accused found guilty
Legal Topics
Screening Device/breath Test Refusals, Detention and Rights to Counsel, Section 254(3) and 254(5) Criminal Code, Section 10(b) Charter
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter of Rights Road Traffic Law Screening Device/breath Test Refusals Detention and Rights to Counsel Section 254(3) and 254(5) Criminal Code Section 10(b) Charter

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Prosecution

Allen Babin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was detained such that s.10(b) Charter rights applied
  2. 2 Whether the first officer was required to make a screening device demand under s.254(3) Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether the delay in making the demand was unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the accused was not detained for the purposes of the Code prior to the arrival of the qualified officer and therefore no s.10(b) breach occurred; the first officer was not obliged to make the screening demand; Constable Pelletier properly made the demand on reasonable grounds and the Crown proved refusal beyond a reasonable doubt, warranting conviction under s.254(5).

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty

Orders

  • Accused convicted of refusing to comply with an approved screening device demand contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code