2 total
The accused's statement to police was ruled voluntary and admissible despite a Taser warning during his arrest.
The Crown sought to admit a statement made by the accused to police following his arrest for assault.
The defence challenged the admissibility of the statement on the grounds that threats made by officers at the scene, including a threat to use a Taser, deprived the accused of his free will to choose whether to make a statement.
The court applied the contextual inquiry into voluntariness from R v Oickle and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary.
The accused's change in demeanor from anger to calm was not the result of threats or coercive conduct, but rather the result of the calm persistence of the transporting officer.
The statement was admitted as evidence.
The court dismissed the accused's Charter applications and found him guilty of driving over the legal limit.
The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit (Over 80).
The Crown alleged the accused had consumed alcohol at a bar, was stopped for a sobriety check, failed an Approved Screening Device test, and was arrested.
Breath samples at the station showed readings of 157 mg/100ml and 148 mg/100ml.
The defence raised three Charter issues: whether the Approved Instrument demand was made "as soon as practicable" under s.254(3); whether the accused's right to be informed promptly of the reason for detention under s.10(a) was breached; and whether the accused's right to counsel under s.10(b) was breached due to insufficient duty counsel advice.
The court found no Charter breaches and convicted the accused.
