section 258(3)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Evidence of a persons failure to comply with a demand for a breath sample is admissible in proceedings related to impaired driving offences and can be used against them in court.

SECTION WORDING

258(3) In any proceedings under subsection 255(1) in respect of an offence committed under paragraph 253(1)(a) or in any proceedings under subsection 255(2) or (3), evidence that the accused, without reasonable excuse, failed or refused to comply with a demand made under section 254 is admissible and the court may draw an inference adverse to the accused from that evidence.

EXPLANATION

Section 258(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the admissibility of evidence in proceedings related to offenses committed under paragraph 253(1)(a) or in cases related to impaired driving. The section highlights that evidence regarding an accused individual's failure to comply with a demand made under section 254 may be presented in court and that the court may draw an adverse inference towards the accused from such evidence. In Canada, impaired driving is a serious offense that is vigorously prosecuted. Section 253(1)(a) deals with the offense of driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs. To enforce this law, law enforcement officers have the authority to demand that a suspect provides a breath, blood, or urine sample for analysis to determine the individual's level of impairment. Section 254 requires suspects to comply with such demands and sanctions non-compliance. Section 258(3) allows the evidence of an accused individual's refusal or failure to comply with section 254 to be admitted in court to obtain a conviction. This section is meant to deter individuals from refusing to comply with a breath, blood, or urine test when required to do so by law enforcement officers. In conclusion, Section 258(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada has been designed to ensure that individuals comply with the requirements of law enforcement officers when it comes to testing for impaired driving. By refusing or failing to comply, individuals may find that evidence of this refusal or failure may be used against them during trial. The intention is to ensure that those who commit the offense of impaired driving are held accountable for their actions and that individuals who repeatedly refuse to comply with testing are appropriately penalized.

COMMENTARY

Section 258(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that allows evidence to be presented in proceedings related to impaired driving offenses. Specifically, this provision permits evidence of a defendant's failure or refusal to comply with a demand made under section 254 of the Code to be admitted as evidence of guilt in relation to charges of impaired driving. Section 254 of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the procedure for police officers to make a demand for a breath sample from an individual who they suspect has committed an impaired driving offense. The officer may demand the sample if the person is operating a motor vehicle, has consumed alcohol, and the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit of 0.08%. Individuals who refuse to provide a breath sample or fail to provide a sufficient sample are subject to criminal charges under this section. The provision in Section 258(3) permits this refusal or failure to comply with the demand to be used as evidence in court against the individual. The court may draw an adverse inference against the accused, meaning that the prosecutor may argue that the refusal or failure to comply is evidence of the accused's guilt. The Supreme Court of Canada has clarified that the adverse inference that may be drawn from an individual's failure or refusal to comply with a demand under Section 254 is a limited one. The inference is only that the individual refused or failed to produce a sample, and does not necessarily equate to guilt for the underlying offense. The prosecution must still prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs. Section 258(3) has been the subject of significant legal debate and analysis in Canada. The provision raises issues of fundamental rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to protection against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court has held that a demand for a breath sample under Section 254 does not violate these rights, as long as the demand is made in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Code and is reasonable in the circumstances. The admissibility of evidence related to a defendant's compliance with a demand under Section 254 has also been challenged in some cases. Defendants have argued that the failure to comply with a demand may be due to physical or medical factors, rather than an intentional refusal to provide a sample. The court has held that evidence related to a defendant's physical or mental state at the time of the demand may be taken into account in determining whether the failure to comply was reasonable. In conclusion, Section 258(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that permits evidence of a defendant's refusal or failure to comply with a demand for a breath sample to be admitted in court. This evidence can be an important factor in determining guilt for impaired driving offenses, but the courts have also recognized that the adverse inference that may be drawn from such evidence is limited. As with all provisions related to fundamental rights and freedoms, the application of Section 258(3) must be carefully scrutinized and balanced against other important values and legal principles.

STRATEGY

Section 258(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial provision that relates to the admissibility of evidence in impaired driving cases. The section allows the court to admit evidence that the accused refused or failed to comply with a demand made under section 254 of the Criminal Code, which requires individuals suspected of impaired driving to provide a breath, blood, or urine sample. This provision is particularly important because it allows prosecutors to rely on evidence of a driver's refusal to provide a sample as proof of impaired driving, even in the absence of a positive test result. When dealing with section 258(3), there are several strategic considerations that lawyers and prosecutors need to take into account. One of the main considerations is the potential impact of this evidence on the outcome of the case. Evidence of a driver's refusal to provide a sample can be highly damaging to their case, as it suggests that the accused was aware of their impairment and chose to refuse testing. As such, it is essential to carefully weigh the impact of introducing this evidence before relying on it in a case. Another important consideration is the potential defences that can be raised in response to this evidence. While a driver's refusal to provide a sample can be damaging, there may be legitimate reasons for their refusal. For example, a driver may have a medical condition that prevents them from providing a sample, or they may have been intimidated or coerced by the police. It is essential to investigate the specific circumstances of the refusal to determine whether there are any viable defences that can be raised. In addition to these considerations, there are several strategies that lawyers and prosecutors can employ when dealing with section 258(3). One strategy is to focus on the reliability of the testing process itself. While the refusal to provide a sample may seem incriminating, it does not necessarily prove that the driver was impaired. By raising questions about the reliability of the testing process, lawyers and prosecutors can cast doubt on the prosecution's case and argue that the accused's refusal was justified. Another strategy is to carefully evaluate the wording of the demand made under section 254. If the demand was unclear or overly aggressive, the accused may have had a reasonable excuse for refusing to comply. By highlighting any issues with the demand, lawyers and prosecutors can argue that the refusal was not a conscious decision to evade testing, but rather a response to an unreasonable or confusing demand. Overall, section 258(3) is a powerful tool in impaired driving cases, but it is essential to approach it strategically and carefully. By evaluating the potential impact of this evidence, considering potential defences, and employing effective strategies, lawyers and prosecutors can build a strong case and achieve the best possible outcome for their clients.