R. v. Hulan

R. v. Hulan

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a lawful demand was made with an approved screening device, the accused knew of the demand and failed to provide a valid sample, and the accused failed to establish a reasonable excuse on the balance of probabilities; mens rea for s.320.15(1) is satisfied by knowledge of the demand alone.

Citation
2023 NSPC 69
Parties
Prosecution: His Majesty the King; Defence: Liam Hulan
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial (verdict Rendered)
Outcome
Guilty of the offence contrary to s.320.15(1) of the Criminal Code.
Legal Topics
Failure/refusal to Provide Breath Sample, Approved Screening Device, Mens Rea (knowledge Vs Intent), Actus Reus (unequivocal Refusal Vs Deemed Refusal), Reasonable Excuse Burden
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Impaired Driving/traffic Enforcement Evidence Statutory Interpretation Failure/refusal to Provide Breath Sample Approved Screening Device Mens Rea (knowledge Vs Intent) Actus Reus (unequivocal Refusal Vs Deemed Refusal) +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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Prosecution

Liam Hulan

Defence

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial (verdict Rendered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the instrument an approved screening device?
  2. 2 Was the instrument in working order?
  3. 3 Was the breath demand a valid demand?

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a lawful demand was made with an approved screening device, the accused knew of the demand and failed to provide a valid sample, and the accused failed to establish a reasonable excuse on the balance of probabilities; mens rea for s.320.15(1) is satisfied by knowledge of the demand alone.

Court Disposition

Guilty of the offence contrary to s.320.15(1) of the Criminal Code.

Orders

  • Convicted of the offence contrary to s.320.15(1) of the Criminal Code.
  • Exhibit 1 (dash cam video and police audio recording) admitted into evidence.