R. v. Rideout, (1971) 2 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 201 (NFSC)

• Judge: Puddester, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: October 21, 1971
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1971), 2 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 201 (NFSC)

R. v. Rideout (1971), 2 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 201 (NFSC)

MLB headnote and full text

The Queen v. Rideout

Indexed As: R. v. Rideout

Newfoundland Supreme Court

At Trial

Puddester, J.

October 21, 1971.

Summary:

The court dismissed the appeal by way of a trial de novo by an accused from a conviction for refusing to comply with a demand to take a breathalyzer test. The court held that Section 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights does not entitle a person to refuse to take such a test before consulting a lawyer.

The accused refused to take the test before consulting his lawyer. The lawyer attended at the police station and, after an interview with the accused, advised him to take the test. However, it was then too late to administer the breath test before the two hour statutory limit expired.

The court held that the requirement of taking the breath test did not interfere with the right to counsel provided by the Bill of Rights. The court stated that if the right to counsel applied to breathalyzer tests, then the accused could stall beyond the two hour limit and render Section 223 of the Criminal Code useless.

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Impaired driving, demand for breath or blood sample - Bill of Rights - Right to counsel - Breathalyzer - Charge of refusal to comply with demand to take breathalyzer test - Whether Bill of Rights gives right to counsel before taking breathalyzer test - Accused refused to supply breath sample before consulting lawyer - Consent given by accused too late for test to be given - On appeal by way of trial de novo the Newfoundland Supreme Court held that Bill of Rights does not justify an accused to refuse to take a breathalyzer test before consulting lawyer - Accused convicted.

Criminal Law - Topic 1378

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Excuse for refusal to provide - Breathalyzer - Charge of refusal to comply with demand to take breathalyzer test - Refusal by accused until opportunity to consult lawyer - Lawyer attended for advice to accused - Accused consented to test too late for test to be given within two hour limit - Whether right to consult lawyer before test - On appeal by way of trial de novo the Newfoundland Supreme Court held that a refusal to give a breath sample before consulting a lawyer was not a reasonable excuse and convicted accused.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ballagger, [1969] 3 C.C.C. 353, refd to.

R. v. Gray (1962), 132 C.C.C. 337, refd to.

R. v. Brownridge (1971), 15 C.R.N.S. 387; 4 C.C.C. 462, folld.

R. v. Clarke, [1969] 2 All E.R. 1008, refd to.

Law v. Stephens, [1971] Crim. L.R. 369, refd to.

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1960, c. 44, sect. 2(c), sect. 2(d).

Criminal Code of Canada, S.C. 1953-54, c. 51, sect. 223.

Counsel:

Clarence Dwyer, for the appellant;

Gerald O'Brien, for the respondent.