R. v. Bhatti

R. v. Bhatti

The trial judge erred in law by applying an impairment-oriented test and requiring indicia beyond an admission of recent consumption; the respondent's unambiguous admission that he had consumed alcohol within about 30 minutes provided objectively reasonable grounds under s.254(2) for an ASD demand, so the acquittal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCSC 741
Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Paramdeep Singh Bhatti
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Acquittal (summary Conviction Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; conviction entered for failing or refusing to comply with an ASD demand under s.254(5) of the Criminal Code; matter proceeded to sentencing by the court
Legal Topics
Approved Screening Device, Reasonable Suspicion, Refusal to Comply With Demand, S.254 Criminal Code
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Road Safety Law Approved Screening Device Reasonable Suspicion Refusal to Comply With Demand S.254 Criminal Code

Source-derived case record

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Paramdeep Singh Bhatti

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal From Acquittal (summary Conviction Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether officer had objectively reasonable grounds to suspect the respondent had alcohol in his body when an ASD demand was made under s.254(2)
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge applied the correct legal test for an ASD demand or improperly required indicia of impairment
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's admission of recent consumption alone suffices to ground objective reasonable suspicion

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in law by applying an impairment-oriented test and requiring indicia beyond an admission of recent consumption; the respondent's unambiguous admission that he had consumed alcohol within about 30 minutes provided objectively reasonable grounds under s.254(2) for an ASD demand, so the acquittal was set aside and a conviction under s.254(5) entered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; conviction entered for failing or refusing to comply with an ASD demand under s.254(5) of the Criminal Code; matter proceeded to sentencing by the court

Orders

  • Acquittal set aside
  • Conviction entered for failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand contrary to s.254(5) Criminal Code