Top Court Signals that Section 24(2) has Teeth
In R. v. Paterson, 2017 SCC 15, the Supreme Court of Canada excluded evidence that police had obtained in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including loaded firearms and a substantial amount of hard narcotics.
I have provided a quick summary of the Court's section 24(2) analysis below.
Case
|
(1)Seriousness of the Charter -Infringing State Conduct
|
(2)
Impact on the Charter-Protected
Interests of the Accused
|
(3)
Society’s Interest in an Adjudication of the Case on its Merits
|
(4)
Would the Admission of the Evidence Bring the Administration of Justice into
Disrepute?
|
R. v.
Paterson,
2017 SCC 15
|
In light of well-established legal principles
governing the authority of police to enter a residence without a warrant, the
Charter violation was sufficiently serious to favour exclusion of the
evidence obtained as a result.
|
Warrantless entry into the accused’s residence was a serious
intrusion. Where, the Charter -protected
interest in privacy is at stake infringements arising from circumstances
denoting a “high expectation of privacy” tend to favour exclusion of
evidence.
|
Evidence seized in the accused’s residence was highly
reliable, and essential to the Crown’s case. This factor strongly supports
admitting the evidence.
|
Yes. Evidence excluded.
[Loaded firearms,
substantial amounts of hard narcotics, etc.]
|
Comments
Post a Comment