APPROVED SCREENING DEVICE AND SECTION 24(2) - ACQUITTAL UPHELD IN IMPAIRED OPERATION CAUSING BODILY HARM CASE
Sunday, February 23, 2014 at 8:02PM In the unique circumstances of this case (Mr. Spin was dealt with by police later at his mother's residence as opposed to directly at the roadside) the Crown conceded that Mr. Spin should have been read his Charter right to counsel prior to providing an approved screening device sample:
Mr. Spin’s counsel argued that the detention of his client commenced when he was being questioned by Constable Monteith at his mother’s residence. The trial judge agreed and found that Mr. Spin was detained at his mother’s residence when compelled to attend at the police vehicle for the purposes of an ASD demand. The Crown did not appeal the trial judge’s finding that Mr. Spin was detained at his mother’s residence thus triggering his s. 10(b) rights at that time. R. v. Spin, 2014 NSCA 1
Contrast the decision in R. v. MacMillan, 2013 ONCA 109 (see March 2, 3013 blog entry).