William Watson

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.

He argued that a subsequent demand made by a breathalyzer technician without reasonable and probable grounds invalidated the initial valid roadside demand.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the initial demand was a continuing demand that remained in force until complied with, and the subsequent demand was merely a good faith attempt to give the appellant a further opportunity to comply.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the police officers improperly made a blood demand instead of a breath demand.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the officers had reasonable and probable grounds to believe a breath sample was impractical because the appellant was in the hospital being treated for a serious bleeding head laceration and was belligerent.