• Stephen Biss

Warning: You Need to Retain an Expert


An excerpt from paragraph 47 of R. v. St-Onge Lamoureux ([2012] 3 SCR 187:

"it is now more difficult to rebut the presumptions. The evidence to be adduced is more complex. The accused must retain a technician or an expert to determine whether the instrument malfunctioned or was operated improperly. It is impossible for a layperson to do this."

You need to retain an expert! The author of this blog is NOT a scientific expert.

Lawyers visiting this blog will be familiar with the rules of evidence concerning expert opinion. Should a member of the public visit this blog and infer that its contents can somehow be used in Court as evidence, I offer the following WARNING.

WARNING: This blog is designed for use by defence lawyers in Ontario only. It is NOT approved by the manufacturers, by the Alcohol Test Committee, by the Centre of Forensic Sciences, police services, or any government authority. Should this blog be used by anyone other than a defence lawyer in Ontario you run the risk that the information contained herein may be unacceptable for your purposes. Please note that the public should NOT attempt to use any of the contents of this blog as evidence in Court. The author is not a forensic expert who gives evidence in Court, but rather a defence lawyer who advocates in Court. Only properly qualified experts can give opinion evidence in Court.

The reality is that any defence lawyer or any member of the public, defending himself or herself in Court (which is not recommended), will need to retain an expert witness to give opinion evidence about the science of evidentiary breath testing or lack thereof.


6 views0 comments