R. v. Grant, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353
Background: Appeal by accused of court decision to admit evidence of firearm despite there being a violation of protected Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b), which was dismissed by trial judge finding no Charter breach had occurred.
Issue: What constitutes detention and should the evidence be dismissed under s. 24(2) of the Charter and whether the admitting of firearm brings administration of justice into disrepute?
Decision: Appeal allowed on trafficking charge, acquittal entered. Appeal dismissed on all other counts.
Ontario C.A. concluded that detention had crystallized during the conversation with the officer before the incriminating statements were made by the accused.
Ruling: (7-0) No.
Facts: Uniformed
…show more content…
2.The impact on the Charter-protected interests of the accused (was the conduct very invasive towards the accused and the protected right).
3.Society's interest in an adjudication of the case on its merits (how substantial is the evidence to Crown’s case).
The inclusion of the third factor was deemed important because the Court ruled that exclusion of evidence that led to an acquittal would throw the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of the public.
In light of this test, it was deemed by the court that the mistake made by the officers was an understandable one, given the legal uncertainty of when an encounter turns to detention, and therefore there is no evidence that the admission of the gun would bring the administration of justice into any further disrepute. Even though the breach on the accused’s protected rights were significant, as it prompted incriminating statements from the accused, the evidence itself is highly reliable and rising gun crimes were a serious enough problem in the eyes of the Ontario public that on balance the admission was acceptable.
-(Per Binnie J., concurring in