R. v. Skinner

R. v. Skinner

The court found that the officer delivered a clear and unequivocal roadside screening demand made forthwith, the accused's prolonged argumentative conduct amounted to a willful refusal under s.254(5) of the Criminal Code, the Crown proved the accused was the driver of a motor vehicle, and the detention did not violate the Charter; accordingly the accused was guilty of refusal to provide a breath sample.

Citation
2014 NSPC 74
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Paul Bryan Skinner
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Decision (conviction)
Outcome
Guilty
Legal Topics
Refusal to Provide Breath Sample Under S.254(5) Criminal Code, Roadside Screening Demand, Requirement of 'forthwith' Under S.254(2)(b), Proof of Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Arbitrary Detention and Charter Ss.7, 8, 9
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Traffic Law Administrative Law Refusal to Provide Breath Sample Under S.254(5) Criminal Code Roadside Screening Demand Requirement of 'forthwith' Under S.254(2)(b) Proof of Operation of a Motor Vehicle +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Paul Bryan Skinner

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Decision (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the roadside screening demand was clear and unequivocal
  2. 2 Whether the demand was made 'forthwith' as required by s.254(2)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the accused unequivocally refused to provide a breath sample

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the officer delivered a clear and unequivocal roadside screening demand made forthwith, the accused's prolonged argumentative conduct amounted to a willful refusal under s.254(5) of the Criminal Code, the Crown proved the accused was the driver of a motor vehicle, and the detention did not violate the Charter; accordingly the accused was guilty of refusal to provide a breath sample.

Court Disposition

Guilty

Orders

  • Convicted of refusal to provide a breath sample contrary to s.254(5) of the Criminal Code
  • No Charter remedy granted (detention found not arbitrary)