Evidential breath testing for alcohol, Parliament, the science and the courts (Part 2)

IF 0.2 Q4 MEDICINE, LEGAL
G. Yost
{"title":"Evidential breath testing for alcohol, Parliament, the science and the courts (Part 2)","authors":"G. Yost","doi":"10.1080/00085030.2020.1757586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A previous article in this journal traced the evolution of the law from the first amendment to the Criminal Code related to breath testing for alcohol in 1951 to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in November 2012 on the constitutionality of the 2008 Criminal Code amendments that eliminated the “two beer” defence. This article discusses the legal, scientific and parliamentary response to that decision leading up to the 2018 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on whether maintenance records could constitute evidence that the approved instrument had malfunctioned.","PeriodicalId":44383,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00085030.2020.1757586","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00085030.2020.1757586","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract A previous article in this journal traced the evolution of the law from the first amendment to the Criminal Code related to breath testing for alcohol in 1951 to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in November 2012 on the constitutionality of the 2008 Criminal Code amendments that eliminated the “two beer” defence. This article discusses the legal, scientific and parliamentary response to that decision leading up to the 2018 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on whether maintenance records could constitute evidence that the approved instrument had malfunctioned.
酒精呼气证据测试、议会、科学和法院(第二部分)
摘要本杂志之前的一篇文章追溯了法律的演变,从1951年与酒精呼气测试有关的《刑法》第一修正案到2012年11月加拿大最高法院关于2008年《刑法》修正案合宪性的裁决,该修正案取消了“两杯啤酒”辩护。这篇文章讨论了法律、科学和议会对该决定的回应,该决定导致加拿大最高法院在2018年就维护记录是否可以构成批准的仪器出现故障的证据作出裁决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信