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

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant