The appellant appealed her conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.
At trial, the officer testified that the appellant initially refused the demand, then made several attempts to blow into the Approved Screening Device but only blew lightly, resulting in no reading.
The appellant argued the trial judge erred by using her initial refusal to infer her subsequent attempts were feigned, and by unreasonably finding the mouthpiece was not obstructed.
The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the initial refusal was part of the actus reus and the trial judge's factual findings regarding the mouthpiece were reasonably supported by the evidence.
