The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.
The trial involved two contested issues: (1) whether the accused's Charter rights to counsel of choice were violated when he was allegedly directed to Duty Counsel instead of private counsel at the roadside, and (2) whether a typographical error in the Certificate of a Qualified Technician (misspelling the manufacturer of the alcohol standard solution) rendered the certificate inadmissible.
The court rejected the defence evidence regarding the alleged Charter violation, finding the accused's account and that of his witnesses to be internally inconsistent, implausible, and incredible.
The court also found that the typographical error in the certificate was inconsequential and did not affect its admissibility.
The accused was convicted.
