R. v. Harley, (1981) 8 Man.R.(2d) 419 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Carr, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: March 25, 1981
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1981), 8 Man.R.(2d) 419 (ProvCt)

R. v. Harley (1981), 8 Man.R.(2d) 419 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Harley

Indexed As: R. v. Harley

Manitoba Provincial Court

Criminal Division

Carr, P.C.J.

March 25, 1981.

Summary:

This case arose out of charges of impaired driving and refusing to comply with a breathalyzer demand contrary to ss. 234 and 235(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Manitoba Provincial Court acquitted on the charge of impaired driving, but convicted on the refusal charge, because the accused failed to establish his defence of automatism.

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - Evidence established that the accused was speeding, was in an unexplained motor vehicle collision, consumed three beer during the evening and demonstrated the "usual" signs of impairment - The Manitoba Provincial Court acquitted the accused on the charge of impaired driving - See paragraphs 13 and 14.

Criminal Law - Topic 1378

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Excuse for refusal to provide breath samples - The Manitoba Provincial Court stated that the defence of automatism applies to a charge of refusing to comply with a breathalyzer demand - See paragraphs 1 to 12.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Karpinski, [1975] 2 W.W.R. 644, consd. [para. 6].

R. v. McGuigan (1971), 6 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 94; 5 C.C.C. 159, consd. [para. 8].

R. v. Bouchard, 24 C.R.N.S. 31, affd. [para. 9].

R. v. Meyers (1979), 2 M.V.R. 173, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Walbourne (1977), 18 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 95; 47 A.P.R. 95, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Pitre, [1971] 5 W.W.R. 270, refd to. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 234, sect. 235(2) [para. 1].

Counsel:

R. Gosman, for the Crown;

H. Wolch, for the accused.

This case was heard by CARR, P.C.J., of the Manitoba Provincial Court, Criminal Division, who on March 25, 1981, delivered the following judgment: