R. v. Bull (L.M.), 1999 ABPC 171

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 25, 1999
• Citations: 1999 ABPC 171;(1999), 360 A.R. 160 (PC)

R. v. Bull (L.M.) (1999), 360 A.R. 160 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. JN.091

Her Majesty The Queen v. Linda Margaret Bull

(8152447P10101; 1999 ABPC 171)

Indexed As: R. v. Bull (L.M.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

February 25, 1999.

Summary:

The accused motor vehicle driver, when stopped by police, misidentified herself because she was a disqualified driver and there were outstanding warrants for her arrest. The accused was charged under s. 129(a) of the Criminal Code with wilful obstruction of a peace officer in the execution of his duty.

The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused guilty.

Criminal Law - Topic 434

Offences against the administration of law and justice - Disobedience and obstruction - Obstruction of peace officer in execution of his duty - The accused was stopped by police for a traffic violation - The accused gave a false name - She was a disqualified driver and the subject of outstanding arrest warrants - The officer questioned the children in the vehicle and they provided the accused's real name - Only then did the accused admit her real name - Her reason for lying was to stay out of trouble - The Alberta Provincial Court convicted the accused of wilfully obstructing a peace officer in the lawful execution of his duty - The officer was lawfully executing his duty - The accused acted wilfully to avoid being issued a traffic ticket in her own name and to avoid detection because she was a disqualified driver with outstanding arrest warrants - The court rejected the submission that since the accused properly identified herself shortly after lying, the officer was subjected to only trifling additional work that was insufficient to constitute obstruction - The court held that s. 129(a) did not require that the obstructive act result in a "major inconvenience" to the officer - Obstruction to any degree sufficed - Although the accused was unsuccessful in frustrating the officer's ultimate execution of his duty, her lie did "impede", "affect" or make "more difficult" the officer's execution of his duty.

Police - Topic 3283

Powers - Identification of criminals - Power to request identity - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "individuals stopped by the police are under a requirement to properly identify themselves when lawfully stopped by the police. They may refuse to identify themselves by refusing to respond to a request to do so in certain circumstances. If the police are acting illegally, or if there are no grounds for legitimate detention or arrest then the accused is under no obligation to respond. ... However, where the officers have observed the accused in the commission of an infraction, or have some other lawful ground for arrest the accused is compelled to identify himself or herself. ... The situation is quite different where someone deliberately gives a false name, this goes beyond refusal to identify oneself." - See paragraph 41.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Whalen (D.R.) (1993), 143 A.R. 234 (Prov. Ct.), disagreed with [para. 2].

R. v. Spezzano (1977), 34 C.C.C.(2d) 87 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Westlie (1971), 2 C.C.C.(2d) 315 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Huneault (1984), 17 C.C.C.(3d) 270 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Tortolano et al. (1975), 28 C.C.C.(2d) 562 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Ure (1976), 6 A.R. 193 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Sandford (1980), 62 C.C.C.(2d) 89 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. L.S.L. (1991), 89 Sask.R. 267 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Houle (1985), 66 A.R. 156; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Thomas (H.R.) (1991), 91 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 341; 286 A.P.R. 341; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 81 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Kephart and Oliver (1988), 91 A.R. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Docherty, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 941; 101 N.R. 161; 78 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 315; 244 A.P.R. 315; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 16].

Rice v. Connolly, [1966] 2 All E.R. 649 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Soltys (1980), 56 C.C.C.(2d) 43 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Moore (1978), 24 N.R. 181; 43 C.C.C.(2d) 83 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Beck, [1998] N.W.T.J. No. 187 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Guthrie (1982), 39 A.R. 435; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 216 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Hudson (1990), 83 Sask.R. 177 (Q.B.), affd. (1990), 87 Sask.R. 288 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Johnson (No. 1) (1985), 41 Sask.R. 205 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Lawson (1973), 22 C.R.N.S. 215 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Zazulak (D.A.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 5; 166 N.R. 243; 149 A.R. 377; 63 W.A.C. 377; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 415, refd to. [para. 45].

Counsel:

B. Hill, for the Crown;

A. Tralenberg, for the accused.

This matter was heard before Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on February 25, 1999.