R v Karunakaran

R. v. Karunakaran

2008 ONCJ 397
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice S.C. Armstrong | August 11, 2008

Background

On August 11, 2007, Constable Shomari Gray noticed Ambikawathy Karunakaran's car sitting at a green light with its backup lights on. After pulling him over, the officer detected alcohol on Karunakaran's breath and demanded he blow into an approved screening device under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code. Karunakaran made six attempts to provide a breath sample, but each time he took only shallow breaths and stopped blowing after a few seconds, causing error codes on the machine.

After the fourth failed attempt, the officer grabbed Karunakaran's wrist to arrest him, but the defendant begged for another chance. The officer allowed two more tries before finally arresting him for failing to provide a suitable sample. The case proceeded as both a Charter application and trial, with the defence arguing violations of sections 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Issues

1. Were the officer's inadequate notes a breach of the defendant's Charter rights?
2. Did the Crown prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?

The Disclosure Disaster

The officer's notes were shockingly sparse. For the entire incident — from initial observation to arrest — his notes consisted of: the word "stopped," followed by "The driver appeared nervous. A slight smell of alcohol detected. No other signs of impairment. Driver was asked to exit the vehicle and driver walked normally. At a normal gait." For the six breath attempts and arrest, he wrote only: "Breath demand issued. Driver provided six opportunities to provide a sample. All six times, the driver failed to provide a suitable sample."

Justice Armstrong found this woefully inadequate. In the post-Stinchcombe era, police notes aren't just memory aids — they're the Crown's primary disclosure tool. The officer essentially disclosed the case for the first time during his testimony, eight to ten months after the incident, forcing an adjournment so defence could get a transcript. The judge ruled this violated Karunakaran's section 7 Charter rights because proper disclosure is fundamental to preparing a defence.

The Reliability Problem

The massive gap between the officer's sparse notes and his detailed courtroom testimony created serious credibility issues. The officer had handled over 80 drinking and driving investigations, including 50 since this incident. With such inadequate notes and the passage of time, Justice Armstrong couldn't be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer's memory was reliable enough to support a conviction.

Key Takeaway

Inadequate police notes can kill a prosecution case on Charter grounds and reasonable doubt.

If police notes are obviously incomplete compared to an officer's testimony, challenge both the disclosure violation and the reliability of the evidence. Courts expect officers to record significant events in sufficient detail to enable proper disclosure — cryptic jottings aren't enough.