R. v. Mullins

R. v. Mullins

The court found the certificate admissible despite the typographical temperature error, and on the facts (accused highly intoxicated, in driver’s seat, engine running and lights operable, no credible evidence a cab had been called and a 30 minute window without a cab) there was a realistic risk the accused would set the vehicle in motion; accordingly convicted s.253(1)(b) and judicially stayed s.253(1)(a).

Citation
2012 NSPC 119
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Ryan Alexander Mullins
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Decision
Outcome
Convicted of s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code; judicial stay entered on s.253(1)(a).
Legal Topics
Care or Control, Realistic Risk of Danger, Section 253(1) Criminal Code, Section 258 Certificate of Analysis, Intention to Set Vehicle in Motion
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Road Traffic/impaired Driving Evidence Care or Control Realistic Risk of Danger Section 253(1) Criminal Code Section 258 Certificate of Analysis Intention to Set Vehicle in Motion

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Ryan Alexander Mullins

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a realistic risk of danger from setting a vehicle in motion is an essential element of s.253(1)(a) and (b)
  2. 2 Admissibility and reliability of breathalyzer certificate given a typographical error on the technician's checklist
  3. 3 Whether the accused's stated lack of intention to drive and claim of waiting for a cab rebut the presumption of care or control

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the certificate admissible despite the typographical temperature error, and on the facts (accused highly intoxicated, in driver’s seat, engine running and lights operable, no credible evidence a cab had been called and a 30 minute window without a cab) there was a realistic risk the accused would set the vehicle in motion; accordingly convicted s.253(1)(b) and judicially stayed s.253(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Convicted of s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code; judicial stay entered on s.253(1)(a).

Orders

  • Conviction entered on count alleging care or control with blood alcohol over legal limit contrary to s.253(1)(b)
  • Judicial stay entered as to the s.253(1)(a) charge