R. v. Hayden

R. v. Hayden

The officer read the required information including duty counsel numbers, the accused indicated understanding and declined to call a lawyer, and the accused gave no indication of misunderstanding that would trigger a further explanatory duty; therefore there was no breach of Charter s.10(b), the Certificate of Qualified Technician was admissible, and the Crown proved the s.253(b) offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Citation
2005 NSPC 19
Parties
Crown: R.; Defendant: Mark Kenneth Hayden
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving (s.253(b) Criminal Code) / Trial Decision on Charter S.10(b) Voir Dire and Conviction
Outcome
Guilty
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, Charter S.10(b), Duty Counsel and Informational Obligation, Breathalyzer Evidence, Exclusion of Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Right to Counsel Charter S.10(b) Duty Counsel and Informational Obligation Breathalyzer Evidence Exclusion of Evidence

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

Parties

R.

Crown

Mark Kenneth Hayden

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving (s.253(b) Criminal Code) / Trial Decision on Charter S.10(b) Voir Dire and Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was given sufficient information about the right to access free and immediate legal advice (duty counsel)
  2. 2 Credibility findings regarding what was read to the defendant and whether there was a s.10(b) breach

Ratio Decidendi

The officer read the required information including duty counsel numbers, the accused indicated understanding and declined to call a lawyer, and the accused gave no indication of misunderstanding that would trigger a further explanatory duty; therefore there was no breach of Charter s.10(b), the Certificate of Qualified Technician was admissible, and the Crown proved the s.253(b) offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Guilty

Orders

  • Certificate of Qualified Technician admitted in evidence.
  • Defendant convicted of care or control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit contrary to s.253(b) of the Criminal Code.