The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to provide a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device.
He argued his refusal was equivocal because he believed he was not the driver and wanted to speak to counsel first, and that the demand was not made forthwith.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions that the refusal was unequivocal, the demand was made forthwith, and no Charter breach occurred since the offence was complete before the right to counsel was engaged.
