R. v. Clarke

R. v. Clarke

The police officer formed suspicion and detained the accused but unreasonably delayed making the roadside screening demand (by briefing other officers and not considering transport to station), thereby breaching s.10(b); as a result the roadside screening 'fail' and the subsequent breath data‑master results were excluded under s.24(2) because their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Citation
2004 NSPC 39
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty The Queen; Defendant: Hugh Arthur Clarke
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving (voir Dire on Admissibility) / Voir Dire (charter Challenge on Admissibility)
Outcome
Charter s.10(b) breach found; roadside screening result and subsequent breathalyzer (data‑master) results excluded under s.24(2).
Legal Topics
Roadside Screening (alert/slii), Section 10(b) Right to Counsel, Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Breathalyzer/data‑master Results, Detention and Reasonableness of Delay
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Roadside Screening (alert/slii) Section 10(b) Right to Counsel Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Breathalyzer/data‑master Results Detention and Reasonableness of Delay

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Prosecution

Hugh Arthur Clarke

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving (voir Dire on Admissibility) / Voir Dire (charter Challenge on Admissibility)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the detention and delay before issuing the roadside screening demand breached s.10(b) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether s.254(2) Criminal Code justified denying opportunity to consult counsel prior to an ALERT/SLII demand
  3. 3 Whether the roadside screening result and subsequent breathalyzer results should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The police officer formed suspicion and detained the accused but unreasonably delayed making the roadside screening demand (by briefing other officers and not considering transport to station), thereby breaching s.10(b); as a result the roadside screening 'fail' and the subsequent breath data‑master results were excluded under s.24(2) because their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Court Disposition

Charter s.10(b) breach found; roadside screening result and subsequent breathalyzer (data‑master) results excluded under s.24(2).

Orders

  • Roadside screening test result (SLII/ALERT fail) excluded from evidence pursuant to s.24(2) of the Charter
  • Breathalyzer/data‑master results excluded from evidence pursuant to s.24(2) of the Charter