R. v. Hall

R. v. Hall

Court found a breach of s.10(b) because the detainee was not clearly informed of duty counsel and a 1-800 number, but the breach was not deliberate, did not impair the accused's ability to contact counsel, and did not prejudice the fairness of proceedings; therefore evidence of telephone calls and the certificate were admissible under s.24(2). The printed name on the certificate satisfied s.258(1)(g). Defence Carter evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt about the breathalyzer readings. The accused was convicted under s.253(b) for operating a vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding 80 mg/100 ml.

Citation
2001 NSPC 29
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Vincent Alexander Hall
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Guilty of impaired driving contrary to s.253(b) of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Right to Counsel S.10(b), Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2), Breathalyzer Certification S.258(1)(g), Carter Defence (evidence to the Contrary)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Law Evidence Forensic Science Impaired Driving Right to Counsel S.10(b) Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2) Breathalyzer Certification S.258(1)(g) +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Vincent Alexander Hall

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police satisfied the informational component of s.10(b) by advising of duty counsel and a 1-800 number
  2. 2 Whether breach of s.10(b) requires exclusion of evidence under s.24(2)
  3. 3 Whether the Certificate of a Qualified Technician complied with s.258(1)(g) despite lack of a handwritten signature

Ratio Decidendi

Court found a breach of s.10(b) because the detainee was not clearly informed of duty counsel and a 1-800 number, but the breach was not deliberate, did not impair the accused's ability to contact counsel, and did not prejudice the fairness of proceedings; therefore evidence of telephone calls and the certificate were admissible under s.24(2). The printed name on the certificate satisfied s.258(1)(g). Defence Carter evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt about the breathalyzer readings. The accused was convicted under s.253(b) for operating a vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding 80 mg/100 ml.

Court Disposition

Guilty of impaired driving contrary to s.253(b) of the Criminal Code

Orders

  • Admitted Certificate of Qualified Technician (Exhibit 1) into evidence
  • Admitted evidence of telephone calls to Chief MacLeod into evidence