R. v. Halfkenny

R. v. Halfkenny

The presumption of care and control was rebutted on the facts because the host had possession of the keys and effectively placed the accused in the vehicle, so the accused was acquitted of s.253(a); however, on s.254(5) the authorities establish that voluntary intoxication does not legally excuse failure to comply with a valid breath demand nor negate the requisite mens rea for that general intent offence, so the accused was convicted of failing to comply with the breath demand.

Citation
2001 NSPC 6
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Perry Halfkenny
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving and Refusal to Provide Breath Sample / Trial Judgment (provincial Court)
Outcome
Acquitted on s.253(a) (care and control); Convicted on s.254(5) (failure to comply with breath demand)
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Care and Control, Refusal to Comply With Breath Demand, Voluntary Intoxication, Mens Rea, Reasonable Excuse
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Impaired Driving Care and Control Refusal to Comply With Breath Demand Voluntary Intoxication Mens Rea Reasonable Excuse

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Perry Halfkenny

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving and Refusal to Provide Breath Sample / Trial Judgment (provincial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presumption of care and control under s.258(1)(a) was rebutted
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved care and control contrary to s.253(a) beyond a reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether non‑compliance with a breathalyzer demand under s.254(5) occurred

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of care and control was rebutted on the facts because the host had possession of the keys and effectively placed the accused in the vehicle, so the accused was acquitted of s.253(a); however, on s.254(5) the authorities establish that voluntary intoxication does not legally excuse failure to comply with a valid breath demand nor negate the requisite mens rea for that general intent offence, so the accused was convicted of failing to comply with the breath demand.

Court Disposition

Acquitted on s.253(a) (care and control); Convicted on s.254(5) (failure to comply with breath demand)

Orders

  • Found not guilty of impaired care and control contrary to s.253(a) of the Criminal Code
  • Found guilty of failing to comply with a breathalyzer demand contrary to s.254(5) of the Criminal Code