R. V. Collins Case Analysis

This is a respectful submission of the prosecution arguments regarding the case R. v. Collins. The arguments will show that the evidence ceased at from the accused should be admissible in the court of law as a Mrs. Collins section 8 Charter right was not violated (R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265). Case laws along other judge’s interpretation will reinforce the arguments presented. The paper will establish arguments based on reasonable grounds, the good faith doctrine and the admissibility of evidence. The accused was arrested by two Royal Mounted Canadian Police (RCMP) officers at the Cedar’s Pub with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking (R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265). The accused deemed the search conducted by the RCMP

However, the public will deem the search excessive use of force on the accused performed by the RCMP officer. This search would increase public outrage regarding excessive use of police powers as they believe the search could have performed in a less intrusive mean. Furthermore, the “throat hold” should not be performed on anyone especially females as it can result in health complications (Atherley & Hickman, 2014). However, it is necessary to note that the “throat hold” is a common practice used by the RCMP drug squad to prevent drug traffickers from destroying evidence. This practice is not illegal as it is used to prevent the swallowing of drugs that may be in the accused mouth that will aid in substantiating the charge. The RCMP officers had reasonable grounds beyond mere suspicion to conduct the search without a warrant as prescribed by the NCA section 10 (1); therefore, they were within the parameters of the law to conduct the search of the accused (R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R.

The public will view the throat hold as the excessive use of force; however, the search to acquire the evidence to substantiate the charge, could not have been obtained in a less intrusive manner. The case R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301, saw the throat hold being used by RCMP officer to secure the accused while a search was conducted on the apartment. This provides evidence that throat hold performed by the officer is a common method used against individuals suspected of involvement in drug trafficking (R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301). The RCMP officer used the throat grab in this case as an instinct as a result of training (R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301). The constable also mentioned that he had used the hold on numerous occasions without performing a search (R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301). The accused right under section 8 of the Charter in R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301 was violated; however, it was not as a result of the throat hold. The charter violation was on the basis of the unlawful search of the resident without a search warrant, even though the throat hold has taken place. However, it was concluded that the evidence would not affect the fairness of the trial and they should be admitted (R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R.