R. v. MacInnis

R. v. MacInnis

An unexplained 35-minute delay between the end of the accused's call to counsel and transfer to the breath technician meant the samples were not taken as soon as practicable; accordingly the Crown could not rely on the s.258(1)(c)(ii) presumption and failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit, resulting in acquittal.

Citation
2003 NSPC 63
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Austin George MacInnis
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving (care or Control) / Trial Judgment (provincial Court Decision)
Outcome
Defendant acquitted (found not guilty) of s.253(b); s.253(a) charge previously dismissed by Crown concession.
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Care or Control, Breath Sample Procedure, Presumption of Identity S.258(1)(c)(ii), Reasonable and Probable Grounds, As Soon as Practicable
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Road Safety Impaired Driving Care or Control Breath Sample Procedure Presumption of Identity S.258(1)(c)(ii) Reasonable and Probable Grounds +1 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 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Austin George MacInnis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving (care or Control) / Trial Judgment (provincial Court Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to demand a breath sample
  2. 2 Whether the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable such that the presumption under s.258(1)(c)(ii) applies

Ratio Decidendi

An unexplained 35-minute delay between the end of the accused's call to counsel and transfer to the breath technician meant the samples were not taken as soon as practicable; accordingly the Crown could not rely on the s.258(1)(c)(ii) presumption and failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit, resulting in acquittal.

Court Disposition

Defendant acquitted (found not guilty) of s.253(b); s.253(a) charge previously dismissed by Crown concession.

Orders

  • Defendant Austin George MacInnis found not guilty of the remaining charge under s.253(b)
  • Charge under s.253(a) dismissed by Crown concession