R. v. Bonang

R. v. Bonang

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that Bonang intentionally or wilfully refused to provide a breath sample and that his ability to operate a vehicle was impaired by alcohol. The judge accepted evidence that the accused was dazed from a head injury and did not appreciate the breath demand, and that the collision, slippery conditions and a temporary spare tire provided a reasonable non‑guilt inference for loss of control; on the whole of the evidence reasonable doubt remained, requiring acquittal on both counts.

Citation
2016 NSPC 73
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Derek Bonang
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial — Judgment (provincial Court Decision)
Outcome
Not guilty on both counts
Legal Topics
Refusal to Provide Breath Sample, Impaired Operation, Mens Rea, Reasonable Doubt, Credibility, Circumstantial Evidence, Right to Counsel, Charter of Rights
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Impaired Driving Evidence Refusal to Provide Breath Sample Impaired Operation Mens Rea Reasonable Doubt Credibility +3 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Derek Bonang

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial — Judgment (provincial Court Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that accused wilfully refused to provide a breath sample under s.254
  2. 2 Whether Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that accused operated a vehicle while impaired under s.253(1)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that Bonang intentionally or wilfully refused to provide a breath sample and that his ability to operate a vehicle was impaired by alcohol. The judge accepted evidence that the accused was dazed from a head injury and did not appreciate the breath demand, and that the collision, slippery conditions and a temporary spare tire provided a reasonable non‑guilt inference for loss of control; on the whole of the evidence reasonable doubt remained, requiring acquittal on both counts.

Court Disposition

Not guilty on both counts

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of charges under ss.253(1)(a) and 254(5) of the Criminal Code