R. v. Peel

R. v. Peel

Constable Roach's conduct in turning, following and detaining the defendant on private property lacked articulable cause and constituted arbitrary detention in breach of s.9; breath samples were conscripted evidence obtained following that breach and, given the seriousness and flagrant nature of the breach, were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2003 NSPC 66
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Douglas Colin Peel
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Decision (provincial Court Trial)
Outcome
Defendant found not guilty on both s.253(a) and s.253(b) of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Section 253 Criminal Code, Arbitrary Detention, Section 9 Charter, Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2)
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Charter Rights Traffic Law Impaired Driving Section 253 Criminal Code Arbitrary Detention Section 9 Charter Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2)

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Douglas Colin Peel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Decision (provincial Court Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police stop and detention violated s.9 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether breath samples obtained after the detention should be excluded under s.24(2)
  3. 3 Whether Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

Constable Roach's conduct in turning, following and detaining the defendant on private property lacked articulable cause and constituted arbitrary detention in breach of s.9; breath samples were conscripted evidence obtained following that breach and, given the seriousness and flagrant nature of the breach, were excluded under s.24(2); without the breath evidence and on the totality of the admissible evidence the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, so the accused was acquitted of both s.253(a) and (b).

Court Disposition

Defendant found not guilty on both s.253(a) and s.253(b) of the Criminal Code

Orders

  • Breath samples excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter
  • Acquittal entered on both counts (s.253(a) and s.253(b))