R. v. Barkhouse

R. v. Barkhouse

The court found the ASD demand was made forthwith (15 minutes after arrival), an approved device was immediately available in the officer's vehicle (no requirement to prove make/model), and there was no s.10 Charter breach because the accused was not under arrest and the ASD provisions are a justified s.1 limitation; therefore the refusal evidence was admissible and the defendant was guilty under s.254(5).

Citation
2005 NSPC 26
Parties
Crown: R.; Defendant: Philip George Barkhouse
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Refusal to Comply With Approved Screening Device Demand (s.254(5) Criminal Code) / Provincial Court Trial Decision (guilty Finding)
Outcome
Guilty as charged
Legal Topics
Approved Screening Device (asd) Demand, Refusal to Comply (s.254(5) Criminal Code), Right to Counsel (s.10 Charter), Forthwith/timing Requirement for Demand, Admissibility of Refusal Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Road Safety/impaired Driving Approved Screening Device (asd) Demand Refusal to Comply (s.254(5) Criminal Code) Right to Counsel (s.10 Charter) Forthwith/timing Requirement for Demand +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Crown

Philip George Barkhouse

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Refusal to Comply With Approved Screening Device Demand (s.254(5) Criminal Code) / Provincial Court Trial Decision (guilty Finding)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the approved screening device demand was made "forthwith"
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved that an approved screening device was available
  3. 3 Whether the accused's s.10 Charter right to counsel required advising before the ASD demand was made

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the ASD demand was made forthwith (15 minutes after arrival), an approved device was immediately available in the officer's vehicle (no requirement to prove make/model), and there was no s.10 Charter breach because the accused was not under arrest and the ASD provisions are a justified s.1 limitation; therefore the refusal evidence was admissible and the defendant was guilty under s.254(5).

Court Disposition

Guilty as charged

Orders

  • Defendant found guilty of refusing an approved screening device demand contrary to s.254(5) Criminal Code