Case Law Review Flashcards
(28 cards)
What year was R v GRANT and what is the central issue?
- 2009 SCC
- investigative detention and RTC
What is a summary of R v GRANT
- November 17, 2003
- 2 undercover officers saw
Grant and thought he was behaving suspiciously; asked a uniform officer to speak to him. - Grant adjusted his coat during the conversation, so uniform officer asked him to “keep his hands in front of him” , 2 undercover officers joined due to ‘officer safety’ concerns, blocked his way forward.
- he eventually admitted he had a gun, was arrested, read his rights (including right to speak to a lawyer).
What was the Supreme Court ruling in R v GRANT
- arbitrarily detained by police in violation of S. 9 of the Charter and his right to speak to a lawyer breached in violation of 10(b)
- despite the breaches, allowed gun to be admitted and dismissed the appeal and upheld his conviction.
R V GRANT
- what 2 Charter rights does detention trigger?
- sec 9: right not to be detained arbitrarily
- sec 10(b): right to retain a lawyer
- crown argues detention began when he was arrested, GRANT argued it began when told to keep his hands in front of him. SCC agreed with GRANT.
In R v GRANT how did the SCC define ‘detention’?
- in a way that would allow police to o their jobs effectively while also protecting the rights of individuals from state interference.
- detention is police intrusion on an individual’s physical or psychological liberty.
R v GRANT: in what 2 situations did the SCC conclude people could be detained psychologically?
- when under a true legal obligation not to walk away from a police officer, or other agent of the state, and
- when they reasonable believe that they have no option to walk away from a police officer, or other agent of the state.
R v GRANT
- the SCC outlined what 3 factors to be considered? (when looking at the specific facts of each case through the eyes of a reasonable person in the place of the accused)
- the circumstance are reasonably perceived by the individual, including the conduct that gave rise to the encounter with the police and whether the individual was singled out;
- the police conduct, with specific attention to the use of tactics, length, tone, and content of the interaction between the police and the accused individual; AND
- the characteristics of the individual stopped, including stature, age, visible minority status, and level of sophistication.
R v GRANT
- when is detention justifiable?
- if police have ‘reasonable and probable grounds’ to believe an individual is participating in criminal activity.
- if they don’t have it and still detain someone, the detention is considered arbitrary and in violating of s. 9 Charter. (this happened in GRANT)
in R v GRANT how was section 10(b) violated?
- GRANT was only provided with the opportunity to contact a lawyer after he was arrested. SCC found he was not provided the opportunity when he was psychologically detained.
R v GRANT
- how was s 24(2) of the Charter involved in this case?
- when evidence is discovered as a result of a breach of an individual’s Charter rights, this section prevents the use of that evidence when it “would bring the administration of justice into disrepute”
R v GRANT
- what 3 areas of inquiry did the SCC articulate to assist a court in determining whether evidence should be excluded?
- how did they apply it in this case
Courts must consider:
1. the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct,
2. the impact of the breach on the Charter protected interests of the accused, and,
3. society’s interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits
How did the SCC apply the 3 areas of inquiry in the GRANT case to determine if the gun should be excluded as evidence?
- SCC determined the evidence should not be excluded from trial.
- seriousness of the breach - although they did violate s 9 and 10(b), not considered flagrant. They acted in good faith and no evidence they specifically targeted GRANT or willfully disregarded his Charter rights.
- the gun was highly reliable physical evidence and public interest in the truth-seeking function of the justice system weighted heavily against exclusion of the evidence and in favour of a trial adjudicated on its merits. There is a public interest in punishing and preventing gun-related crime.
What year is R v JORDAN and what is it the central issue?
2016 SCC
- the right to be tried within a reasonable time 11(b)
What is a summary of R v JORDAN?
- charged with 14 drug offences; waited over 4 years for trial.
- SCC developed a new framework for deciding which delays are reasonable and which are not.
- dismissed JORDAN’s charges
What was the new framework that was introduced as a result of R v JORDAN?
- criminal trials should be completed or expected date of completion: 18 months for trials in provincial court and 30 months for trials in superior court.
R v JORDAN
- Explain the “culture of complacency”
- refers to the unnecessary trial procedures, inefficient practices, and lack of institutional resources (such as low number of prosecutors, judges and court clerks) which are accepted as normal. These factors contribute to delay and also cause harm to the public’s confidence in the justice system. New approached stresses that the onus to avoid delay is on all parties: courts, prosecutors and defence lawyers.
What is the remedy for unreasonable delay?
- judicial stay of proceedings.
(no further prosecution or any outcomes resulting from the charges; similar to an acquittal in that it doesn’t appear on criminal record) - the Crown can try to establish the delay is reasonable due to exceptional circumstances or unexpected complexity.
When does the “clock” start?
when the accused is charged with a criminal offence (then have 18 or 30 months depending on the level of court being tried in).
What year was R v PROSPER and what is the central theme?
1994
- Implementational Duty of RTC
What is R v PROSPER about?
- most investigators understand and comply with their duty to inform suspects that have been detained or arrested of their Charter right to legal counsel and silence. However, in certain circumstances there is a duty to provide a “prosper warning” before questioning them.
When is a Prosper warning given?
- when a suspect first asserts their right to counsel and then changes (or apparently changes) their mind after reasonable efforts have been made to contact counsel, but such efforts were unsuccessful.
In what other case was the issue of a Prosper warning reaffirmed?
R v WILLIER 2010 SCC
- police required to explicitly inform their detainee (again) of their right to a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel, and of the police duty to hold off questioning until such an opportunity has been provided.
What elements should be communicated to a suspect in a Prosper caution?
no specific wording but include:
- the right to remain silent
- the right to reasonable opportunity to consult legal counsel and you initially indicated that you wished to do so. However, you are now indicating that you do no wish to speak with a lawyer.
- because changed mind, duty to advise you again that you have the right to speak to a lawyer, and that I will give you another opportunity to do so if you wish.
- until you decide whether or not you with to speak with a lawyer, I am legally obligated not to attempt to take any statement from you or to ask you to participate in any investigative process that could result in you providing incriminating evidence.
- do you understand? what would you like to do?
What is the ultimate goal of the Prosper warning?
- to ensure individuals who have been frustrated in their attempts to exercise their right to counsel do not give it up too easily.
- essential in ensuring that where a suspect waives their right to silence they do so voluntarily and with knowledge of the consequences of that choice.
