R. v. Clancy, (1983) 47 A.R. 166 (ProvCt)
|Court:||Provincial Court (Alberta)|
|Case Date:||July 27, 1983|
|Citations:||(1983), 47 A.R. 166 (ProvCt)|
R. v. Clancy (1983), 47 A.R. 166 (ProvCt)
MLB headnote and full text
R. v. Clancy
Indexed As: R. v. Clancy
Alberta Provincial Court
July 27, 1983.
An accused was charged with impaired driving and driving a motor vehicle with an excessive blood-alcohol content. The accused was acquitted on both charges. The trial judge held that the certificate of analysis was inadmissible, because the police officer did not have reasonable and probable grounds for making the breathalyzer demand.
Criminal Law - Topic 1374
Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Admissibility of certificate evidence of results of analysis of breath sample - An accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle with an excessive blood-alcohol content - The police officer did not have reasonable and probable grounds for making the demand - The Alberta Provincial Court acquitted the accused, because a certificate of analysis was inadmissible where there was no lawful demand under s. 235(1) of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 8 to 16.
R. v. Rilling (1975), 5 N.R. 327; 24 C.C.C.(2d) 81, not folld. [paras. 10 and 19].
R. v. Hruby (1980), 19 A.R. 230, refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Hall (1981), 26 A.R. 313; 57 C.C.C.(2d) 305, refd to. [para. 20].
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 234(1), sect. 235(1), sect. 236, sect. 237(1)(c), sect. 237(1)(f) [para. 11].
S.A. Jackson, for the Crown;
J.J. Ogle, for the accused.
This case was heard at Calgary, Alberta, before Stevenson, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on July 27, 1983:
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP