Digest: R v Wiebe, 2018 SKPC 38

Reported as: 2018 SKPC 38

Docket Number: PC17130 , 90022989

Court: Provincial Court

Date: 2018-06-18

Judges:

• Hinds

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Motor Vehicle Offences � Driving with Blood Alcohol Exceeding .08
• Constitutional Law � Charter of Rights, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10(b)

Digest: The accused was charged with impaired driving contrary to s. 255(1) and s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and driving while over .08 contrary to s. 255(1) and s. 253(1)(b) of the Code. The defence brought a Charter application alleging that the accused�s s. 8, s. 9 and s. 10(b) rights had been violated and submitted that all observations made of the accused after he was detained by the police and the Certificate of Qualified Technician should not be admitted into evidence at the trial pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter. As the accused was overheld in police cells in violation of his s. 9 Charter rights, the defence argued that if the accused was found guilty, the court should reduce his sentence to below the minimum prescribed under s. 255(1)(a) of the Code pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter. A voir dire was held and by consent, all admissible evidence from it was applied to the trial. The police were dispatched to an impaired driver call at a car dealership. The dispatch call described the vehicle and the licence plate number. The police constables determined that the vehicle belonged to the accused. They met the accused when he parked in front of his home. The constable left her vehicle at 5:44 p.m. and spoke with the accused. He admitted that he drank a can of beer just before and there was a case of beer on the back seat. The accused�s speech was slow and his eyes were red and glassy. At 5:46 the officer decided to place the accused in her cruiser and observed that he stumbled and almost fell into it. During the next six minutes, the accused sat in the vehicle while the constable reviewed her grounds for arrests and breath demand with a colleague. At 5:54 the accused was arrested for impaired driving and read his right to counsel and the police warning. The breath demand was made at 5:56. The accused�s request to call a lawyer from within his house was denied because of safety concerns. The accused was taken to the police station, arriving at 6:13 because the constables had stopped en route to give the keys to the accused�s vehicle to another constable so that he could seize it. The accused was placed in the phone room. He was informed of his right to counsel again and placed calls to five different lawyers but reached only voice mail. He then spoke to duty counsel at...