The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to comply with a demand for a breath sample.
He argued the trial judge failed to apply the proper legal test for determining whether he possessed the requisite mens rea, specifically regarding whether he should have been given another opportunity to provide a sample.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the relevant legal tests and that there was sufficient evidence to conclude the appellant wilfully refused to provide a breath sample by feigning his efforts.
