Digest: R v Knoblauch, 2018 SKCA 15

• Date: March 01, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKCA 15

Docket Number: CA17125 , CACR 2914

Court: Court of Appeal

Date: 2018-03-01

Judges:

• Ottenbreit
• Herauf
• Ryan-Froslie

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Motor Vehicle Offences � Driving with Blood Alcohol Exceeding .08 � Conviction � Summary Conviction Appeal � Appeal
• Constitutional Law � Charter of Rights, Section 10(b)

Digest: The Crown sought leave to appeal and appealed the acquittal of the respondent in the Court of Queen�s Bench sitting as a summary conviction appeal court, pursuant to s. 839 of the Criminal Code (see: 2017 SKQB 9). The respondent had appealed his conviction after his trial in Provincial Court (see: 2015 SKPC 112). He had been charged with driving while his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit. He argued that his s. 10(b) Charter right had been violated because after arresting him, the police officer advised him of his right to counsel and then asked him if he understood his right. The respondent answered affirmatively, but the officer had not gone on to ask him if he wanted to speak to a lawyer when he was in the police cruiser. The officer was the only witness to testify at the voir dire. He relied upon his notes and read that the respondent had declined to call a lawyer. The trial judge found that the patrol car video clearly showed that, at the roadside, the respondent had not been asked if he wanted to call a lawyer and had not declined to do so. The officer�s notes indicated that he had again asked the respondent at the police station if he wanted to call a lawyer and the trial judge noted the inaccuracy. The judge concluded that the inaccuracies affected the reliability of the officer�s evidence but determined that despite the omission to ask the respondent whether he wanted to contact a lawyer, the respondent was properly informed of his s. 10(b) Charter right as it was made clear to him that that legal advice was immediately available, including free Legal Aid. As there was no Charter breach, the Certificate of Analysis was admitted and the respondent convicted. On appeal, the appeal judge concluded that the failure of the police officer to ascertain whether the respondent wanted to contact counsel constituted a breach of s. 10(b). In conducting a Grant analysis, the appeal judge decided that the Certificate should not be admitted and thus there was no evidence to support the conviction. The Crown�s grounds of appeal were: 1) had the appeal judge erred in...