Jack Lindsay 657265724 CRIM 230 Kendra Waugh March 6, 2024 Case Briefs for Legal Memo. In this paper, I will write case briefs regarding Section 8 and Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Canada, for the following five cases: R v. Muller, 2014 ONCA 780, R v. Fine, 2015 BCPC 3, R v. Hamdan, 2017 BCSC 467, R v. Montgomery, 2009 BCCA 41, and R v. Ashby, 2013 BCCA 334. In this, I will be providing each case citation, facts, issues, decisions, and reasoning. CITATION: R. Muller, 2014 ONCA 780. FACTS: The Appellant, Bart, Alec, Muller, was arrested without warrant after exiting a building that officers were surveying. A search warrant was executed in that building to find a drug dealing suspect by the alias “Biggie” (R v. Muller, 2014). P. 7). …show more content…
v. Fine, 2014. p.16). The accused read her s. 10 rights upon her second arrest, and she informed Constable Craven that she wanted to speak to counsel. A female officer, Constable, McLean, arrived at the scene and conducted a “cursory search,” then the accused was placed in handcuffs and detained in the back of Constable McLean’s police car “(R v. Fine, 2014. p.17). Constable Craven then seized and searched the accused’s purse, discovering “$915,” and a bag of baking soda, which was collected along with the two cellphones the accused was holding during her arrest “(R v. Fine, 2014. p.19). During booking, Constable Celli instructed Constable McLean to perform the strip search on the accused due to information he previously received from Corporal Williams, who acted in a supervisor capacity. The accused was provided the chance to release any drugs she had in her possession before the search, but did not respond. The accused underwent a strip search conducted by Constable McLean while a female civilian employee took notes, while taking place in a room being recorded and broadcast. The accused willfully complied with Constable McLean’s direction in removing …show more content…
Fine, 2014. p.36). ISSUE(S): Was videotaping and broadcasting the strip search conducted on the accused in violation of her s.8 rights? DECISION: The Provincial Court of British Columbia found that the strip search briefly violated the accused’s s.8 rights due to the recording and broadcasting, but societal interests outweighed the violations. REASONING: Strip searches have a higher degree of invasiveness and high potential to embarrass whoever is subject to privacy concerns. Because of the high degree of privacy invasion and potential to cause embarrassment, strip searches are held to higher regulations; they must not be out of routine but instead proven necessary by reasonable and probable grounds, also they are to be conducted by an officer of the same sex who has been directed by a supervisor and be conducted in privacy in a police station with the subject never being fully nude. The Provincial Court of British Columbia determined that there were reasonable and probable grounds for a strip search. These grounds included evidence found incident to the accused arrest, her suspicious behaviour suggesting she was hiding something, and
The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?
After arriving at Miss Mapp’s residence and failed to gain permission to enter the residence the three Cleveland police officers should have gone to the DA and retrieved a real search warrant. The fact that they tried to pass off a piece of paper as a search warrant is useless and everything that they find cannot be used against her in court. All of the paraphernalia regarding the bombing that they found is useless because of the pursuant search warrant. Because Miss Mapp did not answer the door when they came back they forced their way into the house and conducted an illegal search. When Miss Mapp’s attorney arrived the police officers would not let the attorney into the house. When Miss Mapp grabbed the purported search warrant the police officers struggled with her to retrieve it and did. Miss Mapp was then placed under arrest as the police conducted a widespread search of the residence wherein obscene materials were found in a trunk in the basement. Miss Mapp was convicted of possessing these material...
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important document that allows us to live our lives without arbitrary governmental control, although there may be certain times when rights should be limited. The R. v Oakes case is a perfect example of this situation coming into play. David Edwin Oakes was caught with an unlawful possession of hash oil and was automatically convicted of trafficking, under section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. By looking at the Charter, it was clear that section 8 of the NCA violated his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, guaranteed in section 11.d. With that in mind, the respondent brought in a motion that challenged section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. Since the Supreme Court and the Crown were confident that the suspect was trafficking narcotics, they created a four criteria ruling, in order to reasonably limit the rights of the respondent. This is permissible under section 1 of the Charter, which states that “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms…only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.”2 The respondent’s case passed the first criterion which stated that “the reasoning for limiting the Charter must be proven important enough to override a constitutionally protected right.” The case did not pass the second criterion which stated that “there must be an appropriate connection between the limitation of rights and the objective of the legislation.”2 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the respondent was released. After reviewing the case it was clear that even though the suspect did not have his rights limited against him, limiting rights should be used more often in severe cases.
One of the few purposes of the Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to ensure that the right for a fair trial for every person criminally tried on Canadian soil and the right for them to be tried within a reasonable time. This ensures that when the trial is commenced in court while the evidence is fresh and available during the trial. However, trials in the Canadian justice system can be delayed due to many factors in which the criticism could be on either the Crown or the accused. This essay will examine the Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Morin. In this case, the accused was charged for impaired driving and the trial date set 399 days after the judge scheduled the trial. In total this was 444-days after the accused was charged with the impaired driving offence. The final verdict of this case set a precedent in the justice system due to the decision by the Ontario Court of appeal that decided that the trial delay was reasonable due to lack of prejudice to the accused during the delay.
Blair, Annice. Law in Action: Understanding Canadian Law. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Education Canada, 2003. Print.
Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.
Redding became a starting case against unconstitutional searches of students where a girl had her backpack searched in the assistant principal 's office. After the official searched her bag, the school nurse’s office was her next destination, so the nurse and the administrative assistant could search her clothes and instructed her to shake out the elastic of her bra and underwear (Carpenter 86-87). The tragic part about this case is that it is not the first or final time a similar event has occurred. In the case of Jane Doe, “...or so she was called in this case…”, a student of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas filed a case against her school (Dowling-Sendor 46). Dowling-Sendor tells of how the school regularly conducted searches of book bags and purses, and police officials would take any contraband found. Then any items found would become evidence for a prosecution (46). When school officials searched Jane’s bag, they recovered a container full of Marijuana, and its purpose was to convict Jane Doe on a drug misdemeanor charge. After being charged with this, Jane appealed to the 8th circuit because the District Court first dismissed her case. The court ruled in her favor in a two to one decision, claiming the search caused a violation of her rights. She had every reason to win because school officials search students at this school on a regular basis, and it is
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has long been the legal document that protects Canadian citizens from infringements made by unscrupulous politicians and legislators. However, there are questions explored about the Sections of the Charter and in those of Section 7 in particular. This is because of the protective function of Section 7 and its obligations of the protection of a citizen’s rights to life, liberty and security of the person. There are third parties that could be posing “threats” to Charter interests and therefore the extents of Section 7 in terms of its protective function for individuals’ rights are put into question. Section 7 of the Charter says that “[E]veryone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” The meaning of Section 7 is to adhere to each individual’s right to the sanctity of life, their physical liberty in a narrow sense, and the integrity of the person is to be kept secure. However, what would the extent of Section 7 be or moreover, what is the extent of each protected interest? The objective of this paper is to examine the extents of Section 7 of the Charter in which the focus is on the protected interests of life, liberty and security of the person. Each protected interest will be discussed in depth with its relationship to a specific Canadian court case. This will help to determine the extent of Section 7 and therefore help understand how much the Charter protects the freedom of Canadian citizens. For right to life, the First Nation communities in Canada had ‘high risk’ of threats to health in their water systems according to Health Canada. The focus of this topic...
David Milgaard’s story is one of the most striking and well know representation of wrongful conviction as it happened right here in Saskatoon. Even further than that his case has been called “one of the most famous examples of wrongful conviction in Canada” (CBC News, 2011). In January of 1970, 17-year-old ...
One of the Legal Rights the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects is: The right to be free of imprisonment, search, and seizure without reasons backed by the law. “In a undisclosed school in Canada, there was a sudden police checking, in which police dogs roamed around the hallway of the school to see if there was any suspicious substance or object. During the checking, the police fo...
Wrongful convictions in Canada is a very sensitive and disturbing topic that has created concerns as to why individuals are being wrongfully convicted. As people in Canada read about cases involving wrongful conviction, such as Guy Paul Morin, Rubin Carter and David Millguard, it often undermines their faith in the criminal justice system. Tunnel vision, the use of questionable DNA evidence, and eyewitness misidentification are the three main causes of wrongful convictions in Canada. Recognizing and addressing these concerns has led to a reduction in cases of wrongful convictions in Canada.
In the year 1970, the Canadian government founded the Law Reform Commission of Canada to ensure the progression of law making and to make recommendations for legal changes . The Law Reform Commission of Canada is constantly importing and suggesting proposals towards the criminal code of Canada. During the year of 1985, t...
Welsh, B., & Irving, M. (2005). Crime and punishment in Canada, 1981-1999. Crime and Justice, 33, 247-294. Retrieved from http://library.mtroyal.ca:2063/stable/3488337?&Search=yes&searchText=canada&searchText=crime&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dcrime%2Bin%2Bcanada%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=18&ttl=33894&returnArticleService=showFullText
Official misconduct, a criminal offense that refers to the abuse or violation of power by government officials to incarcerate someone based on improper evidence within the criminal justice system, poses huge threats to fundamental principles of fairness, injustice, and integrity formed by our justice systems. In recent years, a program called “The Innocence Project” has worked hard to expose and rectify cases of wrongfully accused because of official misconduct, all to gain justice for wrongfully accused victims. Abusing authority, and violating people's constitutional rights are the borders that define official misconduct, all factors that cause huge injustice to our rights and freedoms in Canada. Many cases prove that these unlawful officials
Sacco, V.F and Kennedy, L.W (2011). The Criminal Event: An Introduction to Criminology in Canada. Toronto Cengage Learning.