R. v. Martin, (1979) 22 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181 (NFPC)

• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 09, 1979
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1979), 22 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181 (NFPC)

R. v. Martin (1979), 22 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181 (NFPC);

    58 A.P.R. 181

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Martin

Indexed As: R. v. Martin

Newfoundland Provincial Court

District of St. John's

Luther, Mag.

March 9, 1979.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Criminal Law - Topic 1376

Motor vehicle - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Proof of blood-alcohol content - Number of samples of breath required to be taken - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, ss. 235(1), 237(1)(c),(f) - The Newfoundland Provincial Court held that a breathalyzer technician has the right to demand more than 2 samples of breath from a person suspected of impaired driving - See paragraphs 15 to 27.

Criminal Law - Topic 1377

Motor vehicle - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Refusal to comply with breathalyzer demand - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, ss. 235(2) - After giving 2 samples of breath to a breathalyzer technician, the accused refused to give a third sample, thinking that he was not legally required to do so - The technician immediately prepared an appearance notice on a charge of refusal - As he gave the appearance notice to the accused, the accused changed his mind and agreed to give a third sample - The technician said that it was too late to change his mind and charged him with refusal - The Newfoundland Provincial Court acquitted the accused of refusal on the ground that the accused's change of mind occurred almost simultaneously with the initial refusal, in reality forming but one transaction which could not be construed as refusal - See paragraphs 28 to 36.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Noble (1977), 19 N.B.R.(2d) 417; 30 A.P.R. 417; 17 N.R. 555; 80 D.L.R.(3d) 69 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 17].

R. v. King (1976), 13 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 523; 29 A.P.R. 523; 34 C.C.C.(2d) 46 (Nfld. S.C.), appld. [paras. 17 and 24].

R. v. Hazzard, 40 C.C.C.(2d) 243, not folld. [para. 18].

R. v. Hatt (1978), 23 N.B.R.(2d) 60; 44 A.P.R. 60; 41 C.C.C.(2d) 442, appld. [para. 19].

R. v. Noble (1976), 15 N.B.R.(2d) 91; 18 A.P.R. 91; 32 C.C.C.(2d) 68, appld. [para. 21].

R. v. Jones (1976), 16 N.B.R.(2d) 32; 21 A.P.R. 32; 33 C.C.C.(2d) 50, appld. [para. 22].

R. v. Janes (1977), 13 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 532; 29 A.P.R. 532, appld. [para. 25].

R. v. Jamuga (1976), 9 N.R. 102; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 269, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Rowe, 12 C.C.C.(2d) 24, appld. [para. 31].

R. v. Bowman (1978), 25 N.S.R.(2d) 716; 36 A.P.R. 716, appld. [para. 32].

R. v. McGauley, 16 C.C.C.(2d) 419, dist. [para. 35].

R. v. Murphy, 16 C.C.C.(2d) 41, dist. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 235, sect. 237(1).

Counsel:

S. O'Regan, for the Crown;

D. Williams, for the defendant.

This case was heard before Magistrate LUTHER of the Newfoundland Provincial Court, District of St. John's, who delivered the following judgment on March 9, 1979: