R. v. Berry

R. v. Berry

The judge found on the evidence that the officer honestly held a subjective belief grounded in objective circumstances (single-vehicle serious accident, reports of speed and alcohol smell, alcohol containers) formed within the two-hour window and that the accused possessed sufficient cognitive capacity to communicate with counsel; accordingly the blood demand was lawful and the samples are admissible.

Citation
2001 BCSC 453
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Simon James Berry
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Ruling
Outcome
Blood samples admissible; no breach of s.10(b) Charter; evidence may be entered
Legal Topics
Blood Demand Under S.254 Criminal Code, Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Right to Counsel S.10(b) Charter, Medical Assurances S.254(4), Admissibility of Toxicology Evidence, S.24(2) Exclusion
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Road Traffic Law Blood Demand Under S.254 Criminal Code Reasonable and Probable Grounds Right to Counsel S.10(b) Charter Medical Assurances S.254(4) +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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Simon James Berry

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to demand blood under s.254(3)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the accused was afforded his s.10(b) Charter right to counsel and was capable of exercising it given injuries and morphine
  3. 3 Whether failure to recite s.254(4) medical assurances requires exclusion of blood evidence under s.24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found on the evidence that the officer honestly held a subjective belief grounded in objective circumstances (single-vehicle serious accident, reports of speed and alcohol smell, alcohol containers) formed within the two-hour window and that the accused possessed sufficient cognitive capacity to communicate with counsel; accordingly the blood demand was lawful and the samples are admissible.

Court Disposition

Blood samples admissible; no breach of s.10(b) Charter; evidence may be entered

Orders

  • Blood samples may be entered into evidence.
  • No Charter breach found with respect to s.10(b).