The appellant appealed his summary conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.
Following a rear-end collision, the appellant failed a roadside screening test, was arrested, and repeatedly asked to be released at the scene rather than accompany the officer to the station, despite warnings that this would constitute a refusal.
On appeal, the appellant argued the refusal was not unequivocal, his statements were involuntary, and the information was improperly particularized.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors, the actus reus exception to the voluntariness rule applied to the refusal statements, and the information was sufficiently particularized.