R. v. Slaunwhite

R. v. Slaunwhite

On the accepted facts the demand under s.254(2) was lawful because the demand officer had reasonable grounds based on odour, sole occupancy, agitation and fumbling; the accused was afforded explanations and opportunities to provide four samples but failed to give a suitable sample and his medical excuse was not corroborated or credible; intention to avoid providing a suitable sample was properly inferred from conduct. Therefore conviction under s.254(5) is entered. Conversely, evidence of impairment lacked sufficient reliable indicia (no observed poor driving, limited corroboration of unsteadiness) and the Crown failed to prove impairment under s.253(1)(a) beyond a reasonable doubt, so...

Citation
2010 NSPC 71
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Bradley Slaunwhite
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Decision
Outcome
Convicted of failing/refusing to comply with an ASD demand under Criminal Code s.254(5); Acquitted of impaired driving under Criminal Code s.253(1)(a)
Legal Topics
Refusal to Provide Breath Sample, Approved Screening Device (asd) Demand, Reasonable Grounds to Suspect, Mens Rea for S.254(5), Reasonable Excuse (medical/right to Counsel), Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Law Evidence Law Traffic/impaired Driving Refusal to Provide Breath Sample Approved Screening Device (asd) Demand Reasonable Grounds to Suspect Mens Rea for S.254(5) +2 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 6 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Bradley Slaunwhite

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the officer had reasonable grounds to make an ASD demand under s.254(2)
  2. 2 Whether the accused intentionally failed to provide a suitable breath sample (mens rea for s.254(5))
  3. 3 Whether the accused had a reasonable excuse (medical condition or Charter breach) for failing to provide a suitable sample

Ratio Decidendi

On the accepted facts the demand under s.254(2) was lawful because the demand officer had reasonable grounds based on odour, sole occupancy, agitation and fumbling; the accused was afforded explanations and opportunities to provide four samples but failed to give a suitable sample and his medical excuse was not corroborated or credible; intention to avoid providing a suitable sample was properly inferred from conduct. Therefore conviction under s.254(5) is entered. Conversely, evidence of impairment lacked sufficient reliable indicia (no observed poor driving, limited corroboration of unsteadiness) and the Crown failed to prove impairment under s.253(1)(a) beyond a reasonable doubt, so...

Court Disposition

Convicted of failing/refusing to comply with an ASD demand under Criminal Code s.254(5); Acquitted of impaired driving under Criminal Code s.253(1)(a)

Orders

  • Conviction entered on charge under Criminal Code s.254(5) (failure/refusal to comply with ASD demand)
  • Acquittal entered on charge under Criminal Code s.253(1)(a) (impaired operation of a motor vehicle)