2 total
Accused found guilty of refusing breath sample; roadside demand was lawful and timely despite delays.
The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample at the roadside.
The accused argued that the demand was not made 'forthwith' and that he was denied his right to counsel.
The court found that the officer's informal and formal demands were lawful and timely, considering the context of the accused's obstreperous behaviour and the realistic unavailability of duty counsel within the forthwith window.
The accused was found guilty.
The accused was convicted of refusing a breath sample after the court found the roadside demands were lawful and timely despite his obstreperous behavior.
The Crown alleged that Constable Uppal made lawful demands for a breath sample, which the accused refused.
The central issue was whether the demands were lawful under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code, considering the "forthwith" requirement and the accused's right to counsel.
The court found that both an informal demand and a formal demand were lawful and timely, and that the accused's refusal constituted the offence.
The court rejected arguments that the absence of specific language rendered the demands invalid and found that the realistic availability of duty counsel did not support a finding that the demands were premature.
