R. v. Dymond

R. v. Dymond

The breath demand was given without reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused had operated the vehicle (officer only knew accused was registered owner and at a nearby store), therefore the demand was improper and refusal under s.254(5) could not stand; the arrest lacked R&P grounds though detention was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 NSPC 49
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Roger Dymond
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Provincial Court — Oral Decision (acquittal)
Outcome
Acquitted on both charges (s.254(5) and s.252(1))
Legal Topics
Breathalyzer Demand (s.254(5)), Failure to Stop / Identification (s.252(1)), Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Right to Counsel of Choice, Detention Vs Arrest, Exclusion of Evidence, Judicial Identification
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Charter Evidence Search and Seizure Impaired Driving Breathalyzer Demand (s.254(5)) Failure to Stop / Identification (s.252(1)) Reasonable and Probable Grounds +4 more

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Roger Dymond

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Provincial Court — Oral Decision (acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the arrest lawful?
  2. 2 Did officer have reasonable and probable grounds to demand a breath sample?
  3. 3 Was right to counsel of choice respected?

Ratio Decidendi

The breath demand was given without reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused had operated the vehicle (officer only knew accused was registered owner and at a nearby store), therefore the demand was improper and refusal under s.254(5) could not stand; the arrest lacked R&P grounds though detention was lawful, the boot seizure violated s.9 and the statement to Constable LaPlante was made before access to counsel and is inadmissible; cumulatively the Crown failed to prove s.252(1) beyond a reasonable doubt — accused acquitted on both counts.

Court Disposition

Acquitted on both charges (s.254(5) and s.252(1))

Orders

  • Not guilty of refusing to provide breath sample contrary to s.254(5) Criminal Code
  • Not guilty of failing to stop and give name/address contrary to s.252(1) Criminal Code