R. v. Tripp

R. v. Tripp

The court found that the officer's accurate albeit abbreviated description 'S-L2' together with his assertion based on training and experience established beyond reasonable doubt that the device used was an approved screening device, providing reasonable and probable grounds for the breathalyzer demand; the s.10(b) right to counsel was complied with in the circumstances and a clear waiver occurred, but the failure to advise the accused of immediate access to duty counsel amounted to a Charter breach which the court noted but did not resolve on admissibility because no application was before it.

Citation
2002 NSPC 29
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Wayne Lewis Tripp
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Decision on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Court finds SL-2 was an approved screening device and that officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the breathalyzer demand; s.10(b) right to counsel was complied with and waived by the accused; failure to advise of immediate access to duty counsel is a Charter breach noted by the court; admissibility of the...
Legal Topics
Approved Screening Device, Right to Counsel S.10(b), Breathalyzer Demand S.254(2), Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2), Operation Contrary to S.253(a) and (b)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Traffic Law Evidence Approved Screening Device Right to Counsel S.10(b) Breathalyzer Demand S.254(2) Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2) +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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Wayne Lewis Tripp

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Decision on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SL-2 device used was an 'approved screening device' under the Approved Screening Devices Order and s.254(2) Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the accused's s.10(b) Charter right to counsel was breached by the timing of the right-to-counsel advisement and by failing to inform him of immediate access to duty counsel
  3. 3 What effect, if any, the failure to advise on duty counsel has on admissibility of the breath evidence under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the officer's accurate albeit abbreviated description 'S-L2' together with his assertion based on training and experience established beyond reasonable doubt that the device used was an approved screening device, providing reasonable and probable grounds for the breathalyzer demand; the s.10(b) right to counsel was complied with in the circumstances and a clear waiver occurred, but the failure to advise the accused of immediate access to duty counsel amounted to a Charter breach which the court noted but did not resolve on admissibility because no application was before it.

Court Disposition

Court finds SL-2 was an approved screening device and that officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the breathalyzer demand; s.10(b) right to counsel was complied with and waived by the accused; failure to advise of immediate access to duty counsel is a Charter breach noted by the court; admissibility of the...