R. v. Jewers

6 C.C.C. (2d) 301



The police were called down at the scene of an accident where the appellants car was involved. Cst Mason smelled a strong odour of alcohol and the appellants eyes were watery and bloodshot. He made a breath demand took him to the medical center to clear up the cut on the accuseds nose due to the accident. He was then brought to the police station an hour later and took the breath tests at an hour and fifteen minutes after the police arrived at the scene. The accused appealed by saying that that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the breath tech when the technician failed to fulfill the requirements of section 224A 1f; that he erred in holding that cst mason had reasonable and probable grounds upon making a demand; that he erred in cst friis was a qualified tech; that he erred in holding that the Crown proved the requirements in s 223 [sic] in that the appellant had committed an offence within the preceeding 2 hours prior to the demand given; and that the judge erred in failing to give the appellant the benifit of reasonable doubt



There was no certificate of a qualified technician tendered at trial and there fore s 224A 1f has no application in this appeal. Ground 2 appears to be a question of fact and not applicable under s 743. Even if the appellant was right in that cst friis was not a qualifed tech, he would still be able to testify as a expert witness, it would juss limit his ability to write up a certificate. Ground 4 is also a matter of fact and it is not for this Court to disturb this finding. Ground 5, there was evidence befre the trial Judge upon which he could find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, appeal dissmissed