R. v. Robar

R. v. Robar

A 19 minute delay caused by the officer attending to an exigent duty was reasonable; the police took adequate steps to contact the accused's counsel and offered alternative counsel or duty counsel; the accused declined and waived his right to counsel; breath tests were taken as soon as practicable so the presumption of identity applies and the evidence is admissible, supporting a conviction.

Citation
2004 NSPC 27
Parties
Prosecution: R.; Defendant: Peter Eugene Robar
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Decision
Outcome
Guilty as charged
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Right to Counsel (s.10(b)), Charter S.24(2) Exclusion, As Soon as Practicable, Presumption of Identity S.258(1)(d)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Evidence Impaired Driving Right to Counsel (s.10(b)) Charter S.24(2) Exclusion As Soon as Practicable Presumption of Identity S.258(1)(d)

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Prosecution

Peter Eugene Robar

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 19 minute delay in reading Charter rights breached s.10(b)
  2. 2 Whether breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" under s.254(3) and/or s.258(1)(c)(ii) thus allowing the presumption of identity
  3. 3 Whether the police failed to facilitate the accused's choice of counsel and should have held off breath testing pursuant to s.10(b) and R. v. Prosper

Ratio Decidendi

A 19 minute delay caused by the officer attending to an exigent duty was reasonable; the police took adequate steps to contact the accused's counsel and offered alternative counsel or duty counsel; the accused declined and waived his right to counsel; breath tests were taken as soon as practicable so the presumption of identity applies and the evidence is admissible, supporting a conviction.

Court Disposition

Guilty as charged

Orders

  • Defendant found guilty of driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit contrary to s.253(b) of the Criminal Code.
  • No Charter remedy granted; Crown evidence admitted.