International Law

R. v. Wood

The CBC had a bit of fun with the story — see “Whitehorse man wins breathalyzer challenge, claiming too ‘cheap’ to be impaired” — but there is a point being made in this judgment (pdf file) from the Yukon Territorial Court. Yes, the accused claimed to be too cheap to have drunk enough on the night in question to be intoxicated. And this is a valid defense, capable of raising a reasonable doubt, despite the results of the breathalyzer test:

When breath testing for alcohol is administered by a qualified technician using an approved instrument, the result is presumed to be correct unless there is evidence to the contrary. It sounds simple but it is not. Crown counsel says that the testimony of Mr. Wood, Mr. Young and Ms. Hartling cannot stand when placed against the result of the Datamaster, a scientific instrument which provides evidence that is supported by the “failed” ASD test. I should, Crown counsel submits, flatly reject the essential defence testimony. In that event, there would be no evidence to the contrary, and a finding of guilt would necessarily follow.

…

I cannot rely, as a ground for rejecting Mr. Wood’s testimony that he had drunk only two beers, on the fact that the breathalyzer result would indicate that he had drunk much more than that . . . When I consider all the remaining relevant evidence and testimony, I cannot say that I am convinced by Mr. Wood’s testimony; far from it, but Mr. Wood does not bear the burden of proving his innocence. He is required only to raise a reasonable doubt, and I find that he has done that.

Unlike what happened in the case of Boucher, the testimony of Mr. Wood here was not rejected, though the judge was “far from” convinced by it. The key point is that he was left with a reasonable doubt after considering all of the evidence.

Full post as published by Criminal Review on January 08, 2008 (boomark / email).