R. v. Brown (V.G.), (1991) 96 Sask.R. 284 (QB)

• Judge: Goldenberg, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 17, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1991), 96 Sask.R. 284 (QB)

R. v. Brown (V.G.) (1991), 96 Sask.R. 284 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Valerie G. Brown (respondent)

(No. 538 A.D. 1990)

Indexed As: R. v. Brown (V.G.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Kerrobert

Goldenberg, J.

December 17, 1991.

Summary:

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - The accused driver was shaken up when her vehicle rolled in an accident - Police breached the ac­cused's right to counsel because, although being aware of her condition, they failed to make certain she understood and ap­preciated her rights - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the trial judge was correct to exclude the evidence - See paragraphs 7 to 14.

Civil Rights - Topic 4609

Right to counsel - Duty of authority to explain right to counsel - The accused driver was shaken up when her vehicle rolled in an accident - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the police breached the accused's right to counsel because, although being aware of her condition, they advised her of her rights at a time when she was unable to understand and appreciate her rights.

Criminal Law - Topic 7477

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - Notice of appeal - Signing of - Authority - The notice of appeal in a summary conviction case was signed by a Crown prosecutor on behalf of the agent of the Attorney General for Saskatchewan - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the appeal was tainted, as counsel purporting to act had not been appointed as agent of the Attorney General and therefore did not fall within s. 813(b)(i) of the Criminal Code - The court therefore lacked jurisdiction because counsel was not specifically authorized to prosecute the appeal and moreover there was no proof that the Attorney General's agent had authorized counsel to act on his behalf - See paragraph 15.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Haudegand (1989), 77 Sask.R. 281, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. McAvena (1987), 55 Sask.R. 161, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Baig (1988), 81 N.R. 87; 25 O.A.C. 81; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 181 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Anderson (1984), 2 O.A.C. 258; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Hamilton (1991), 96 Sask.R. 278 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 15].

R. v. Wolverine and Bernard, [1987] 3 W.W.R. 475; 59 Sask.R. 22 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 24 [para. 8].

Counsel:

B. McHolm, for the appellant;

C. Spencer, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Goldenberg, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Kerrobert, whose decision was delivered orally on December 17, 1991.