R. v. MacLean

R. v. MacLean

Given binding precedent authorizing vehicle stops and the facts that the accused was informed of his right to counsel, was offered and spoke privately to duty counsel for 24 minutes, did not request a specific lawyer or ask for assistance to contact one, and provided breath samples, there was no breach of s.9 or s.10(b); the right to counsel of choice requires the detainee to assert that choice with reasonable diligence and no deprivation occurred here.

Citation
2007 NSPC 74
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Dale Robert MacLean
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Impaired Driving With Charter Application / Voir Dire / Charter Application During Crown's Case
Outcome
Application dismissed; no breach of s.9 or s.10(b) established
Legal Topics
Arbitrary Detention (s.9), Right to Counsel (s.10(b)), Investigative Vehicle Stops, Duty Counsel, Roadside Breath Screening
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Evidence Law Arbitrary Detention (s.9) Right to Counsel (s.10(b)) Investigative Vehicle Stops Duty Counsel +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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Dale Robert MacLean

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Impaired Driving With Charter Application / Voir Dire / Charter Application During Crown's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the traffic stop and detention were arbitrary contrary to s.9 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the s.10(b) informational component was adequate
  3. 3 Whether the s.10(b) implementational component deprived the accused of counsel of his choice

Ratio Decidendi

Given binding precedent authorizing vehicle stops and the facts that the accused was informed of his right to counsel, was offered and spoke privately to duty counsel for 24 minutes, did not request a specific lawyer or ask for assistance to contact one, and provided breath samples, there was no breach of s.9 or s.10(b); the right to counsel of choice requires the detainee to assert that choice with reasonable diligence and no deprivation occurred here.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no breach of s.9 or s.10(b) established