The Crown had withdrawn an impaired driving charge against James Thomas Compton because there was no reasonable expectation that a conviction would be obtained at trial.
Compton and a companion were travelling from Roddickton back to Englee on April 15, 2010 when the police stopped the vehicle they were in. Compton told the court that his friend was intoxicated before they left and that he had purchased a flask of rum in Roddickton before they left.
He said his companion had poured up two drinks, one for each of them, shortly before the police stopped them.
Compton said he had taken one sip and that his friend “downed” both drinks when they saw the police car lights behind them.
Withdrew the charge
Following a voir dire to address what happened roadside during the vehicle stop, Crown attorney Trina Simms withdrew the impaired driving charge, leaving the court only the refusal charge to prosecute.
Compton was taken to the police detachment in Roddickton. A breath demand was made of him, but Compton said he could not provide a proper sample because he was unable to adequately blow into the device.
The court heard that Compton does have asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which could indeed make it difficult for him to provide a breath sample. There was also evidence from a police officer that Compton may have been placing his tongue over the hole in which breath must be directed on the breathalyzer device.
Judge Catherine Allen-Westby also heard that Compton was unco-operative with the police while an officer tried to obtain his fingerprints. The officer testified that another officer’s assistance was required to help bring Compton under control.
The officer testified that Compton seemed to have no difficulties breathing during the struggle. Compton, who refused medical treatment for his breathing problems at the police station, did get some treatment at the hospital in St. Anthony later.
Compton was detained overnight and was described by police as “still being rude, arrogant and angry” the following morning.
Defence lawyer Robby Ash argued that his client never refused to blow into the breathalyzer machine and, if there was any reasonable doubt that he intended to not provide a sample, then he should be acquitted.
Simms contended that Compton deliberately did not blow hard enough into the machine, which would constitute a refusal. She said that, despite his respiratory problems, there was no evidence that his breathing problems on this particular day were so significant that he could not have provided a sample.
The Crown also noted that Compton initiated the altercation with the officers at the police station before he received treatment for his breathing problems.
After considering the case, Allen-Westby ruled there was a reasonable doubt that Compton was able to provide the sample required by the breathalyzer device. She noted that, although “his behaviour left much to be desired,” Compton was actually co-operative during the attempts to obtain a breath sample.
In acquitting him of the charge, the judge said his chronic health conditions do compromise his ability to inhale and exhale at the rates necessary to obtain a breath sample.
Twitter: WS_GaryKean
