R. v. Simmons

R. v. Simmons

In the unusual circumstances of a public safety incident where the accused was under arrest for more serious offences, had been read rights in relation to those offences, was transported directly to the station and the ASD demand was made immediately upon arrival, the delay did not render the demand outside s.254(2); therefore the demand was lawful and the defendant's refusal constituted an offence under s.254(5).

Citation
2006 NSPC 29
Parties
Crown: R.; Defendant: Ross Clayton Simmons
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Provincial Court Decision
Outcome
Guilty as charged
Legal Topics
Breath Screening (asd), S.254(2) 'forthwith' Requirement, Right to Counsel (s.10(b)), Refusal to Provide Breath Sample, Detention and Transport
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Evidence Breath Screening (asd) S.254(2) 'forthwith' Requirement Right to Counsel (s.10(b)) Refusal to Provide Breath Sample +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Crown

Ross Clayton Simmons

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Provincial Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ASD demand complied with s.254(2) given a 33–35 minute delay between detection of alcohol smell and the demand
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of the word 'forthwith' in s.254(2) and its application to delays caused by public safety exigencies
  3. 3 Whether any breach of s.10(b) Charter rights occurred or vitiated the s.254(2) demand

Ratio Decidendi

In the unusual circumstances of a public safety incident where the accused was under arrest for more serious offences, had been read rights in relation to those offences, was transported directly to the station and the ASD demand was made immediately upon arrival, the delay did not render the demand outside s.254(2); therefore the demand was lawful and the defendant's refusal constituted an offence under s.254(5).

Court Disposition

Guilty as charged

Orders

  • Defendant found guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s.254(5) of the Criminal Code