Supreme Court
Decision Information
Summary: appeal by the Accused from convictions for impaired driving and willfully obstructing a police officer Accused was pulled over for speeding after a lengthy police chase - Officer observed signs of impairment - Accused gave his brother's name when asked for his own - Accused was arrested - Breathalyzer technician at the station recognized the Accused as being wanted on another matter - After being shown photograph's Accused eventually admitted his true identity - Trial judge found that there was evidence of impairment and that the Accused had attempted to mislead the police - Accused appealed the decision on the basis that the trial judge had failed to consider a relevant authority relied upon by the Accused - Authority not referred to in the judge's reasons - Accused also maintained that the judge had erroneously used the silence of the Accused as an aspect of the process of determining guilt - Final ground of appeal was that the Accused's actions did not amount to criminal obstruction. Court feels there was Ample evidence on which the trial judge could have reasonably based his verdict - No error of law or misapprehension of justice - There was nothing in the evidence to raise a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the Accused - The reference to the silence of the Accused was a permissible use of the failure of the Accused to testify - Trial judge found as a fact that the officer was put to extra work and this constituted obstruction - Actions of the Accused did not have to totally frustrate the officer in the execution of his duty.
Abstract: Summary conviction appeals from convictions on charges of impaired driving and obstructing a peace officer
Decision: Appeal dismissed
Subjects: Criminal law - Motor vehicle offences - Impaired driving
Criminal law - Peace officers - Resisting or obstructing peace officer