Legal Memorandum (1)
.pdf
School
Wilfrid Laurier University**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
PO 208
Subject
Law
Date
Dec 19, 2024
Pages
21
Uploaded by AmbassadorSnow9573
Legal MemorandumMehak Tambe169039878Wilfrid Laurier UniversityDecember 1st2024Dr. Jeff BoichPO208 – Legal Writing
1. Overview and IdentificationThis portion addresses the legal memo regarding the issue of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Stairs, 2021 SCC 15, bearing in mind subsection 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which deals with the derogation of evidence that is acquired in breaching the Charter. The memorandum argues that the Court made a great legal error in that, first, it wrongly applied the Grant test to determine whether evidence was admissible in the context of the Charter’s paragraph 8 protecting privacy against unreasonable search and seizures. In this case, however, the Supreme Court undermined the gravity of the Charter violation, which is the wrongful search and seizure that Mr. Stairs was subjected to and placed unreasonable faith in the police's intentions while inquiring into the incident. In R v. Stairs, the evidence obtained as the result of a warrantless search is the focal point. Central to this issue is whether the police would have the requisite reasonable grounds to conduct a warrantless search. Police were in raiding search, since they saw Mr. Stairs as being central to the drug case, because he had around ninety grams of crystal meth or ice in his house. There were no compelling legal reasons for this search to take place, such as an approved warrant or other emergency situations. There was thus a breach of Mr. Stairs' Section 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure which infringed his constitutional rights.In the suite of proceedings, the trial court judge ruled that such evidence, acquired because of this illegal search, would not be suppressed, and could be used against Mr. Stairs in the trial. The Court of Appeal however agreed to this. The matter eventually came to the Supreme Court, which had to determine if the evidence was immune from exclusion under Section 24(2) which excludes such evidence procured in breach of an individual’s Charter rights. However, the analysis of the Supreme Court seems to have in the end discounted this factor and instead concentrated on the police officers purported good faith on their actions, which in the opinion of the Court diminished the severity of the Charter violation. It is contended in this memorandum that this reasoning was
erroneous and did not offer adequate safeguards against violations of Mr. Stairs’ constitutional rights. The error made by law in this case is more of legal policy issue than anything as it concerns the consequences of the Charter breach as the constitution was left unburdened, and random search was conducted without fully addressing the impact it had on Mr. Stairs’ privacy rights. In particular, the court held the police good faith with unnecessary respect while on the other hand failed in adequately appreciating the violation of privacy which the unlawful search entailed. Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence is the main theme the analysis adopts starting with the threefold focus to ascertain its applicability, first established in the Grant case, Grant v. The Queen, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353 as follows: 1.The seriousness of the Charter Violation: What interplay tolerant measures existed or were taken to accompany such infringement of charter rights.2.The impact of the individuals Charter-protected rights: Various embodiments to what extent were most or all unique charter rights protected in this given case and what harm resulted from the case.3.Societies interest in adjudicating the case on its merits: To what extent did the people consider it a case which is worth engaging and fighting for and is it strong enough to of course overrule the charter rights that in some parts of the case may be necessary to be protected.In this instance I feel that the actual application of the Grant test by the Supreme Court was deficient to some extent as it downplayed the good faith of the officers undue. The invasion of the home was an unreasonable search alternative in Mr. Stairs’ case and has been, for an extended period of time, recognized as a fundamental aspect of the siege of Section 8 of the Charter. The Court’s inability to understand the seriousness of this violation properly caused them to accept the evidence adduced for the purposes of trial.
The Grant test focuses on the consideration of the gravity of the breach and the social interest in having cases determined on their merits. For example, in this case, public interest in hearing the case did not sufficiently outweigh the breach of constitutional rights. On the contrary, the Settlement Agreement approach placed excessive comfort on law enforcement practice which poses a threat of establishing dangerous practice on the future dealing of unlawful searches. If such searches are allowed to be treated as evidence in court merely based on police good faith, the protections guaranteed by Section 8 are in fact undermined and Section 24(2) as a remedy upholds the constitution’s integrity only in theory and practice if at all. Additionally, the Court's position in R v. Stairs departs from previous decisions which have laid considerable stress on the nature of the privacy infringement in cases of unlawful searches. For example, the Supreme Court decision in R v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265, maintained that privacy invasions, especially involving unlawful search and seizure, are to be taken very seriously. Furthermore, in R v. Simpson, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 255, the Court stressed the need to provide sufficient weight to the privacy of the home when considering the exclusion of evidence. These cases bring out again the overriding concern for personal privacy within the Canadian legal order and the desirability of ensuring that individuals are as far as possible shielded from excessive state interference.Moreover, the case, R v. Stairs, fails to consider the global perspective of the right to privacy. The provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights particularly Article 8 that guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, complement Canadian legal standards that guarantee respect for the dignity and privacy of the person and the inviolability of the home. R v. Stairs suggests that while Canadian law has for an extended period focused on the preservation of privacy laws, an attack on such laws is imminent. This is evident in the comment of the court's appeal in the case Stairs, which did comply with the principles set out not only in the Charter but also in International human rights law.
Broadly speaking, the logical flaw in Supreme Court's ruling in R v. Stairs is that it has looked too generously at the scope of the Charter violation and trifled with the effects of the Charter violation on Mr. Stairs' rights. To center on the police's belief in good faith when confronted with such a gross breach of privacy does not augur well for the protection of individual rights in subsequent cases. The Court’s distinction requirements in the application of the Grant test were ineffectively met. All that was needed was an order to exclude the evidence as a new piece of legally inadmissible evidence to avoid self-incrimination and preserve the law. This memorandum will elaborate on the applicability of the Grant test, examine the applicability of the decided cases, and suggest thoroughly the possibility of bringing an appeal in R v. Stairs.Facts The matter of R v Stairs involves the alleged infringement of the Mr. Jian Stairs’ rights, under Section 8 of the Charter which states that one has a right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This case deals with A search of the home of Mr. Stairs, a man who was arrested by the police, despite a lack of warrant during the police arrest. The focus both at trial and on appeal was whether such evidence as was obtained during the illegal search, crystal methamphetamine over ninety grams, was admissible in court, or was it to be set aside in line with section 24(2) of the Charter.A.Events that lead to Mr. Stairs ArrestThe facts of the case start from the police intelligence touch regarding drug trafficking activities in the area where Mr. Stairs habited. The police disclosed that they received information from an anonymous individual who alleged that Mr. Stairs was peddling banned substances, more so, methamphetamine. In pursuit of that information, the police acted and started the watch in the vicinity of Mr. Stairs’ house. The police came to view Mr. Stairs as the person of interest after close
to surveillant him for quite a few days. So, even though they did not have proof that he lived there, seeing as Mr. Stairs had been home on occasions, the decision was made to arrest him. But in the first place, the officers did not have any order to arrest Mr. Stairs or to search his premises when the arrest was taking place. As it turned out, the very first time when this information was announced was when officers approached him inside the house, ordering him into custody Mr. Stairs was told by the police that he would be arrested due to the presence of illegal drugs on him. Interestingly, although the police did not have any warrant, they decided to claim that they had reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr. Stairs was in the act of performing an alleged crime which is used as a justification for making an arrest in the absence of warrant under the provisions of the Code.In the view of the police, they acted properly in the prevailing emergency circumstances of the situation. Additionally, their argument on the issue was that there was reason to fear that Mr. Stairs would attempt to destroy evidence, which was the drugs in this case, once he set his eyes on the police. Therefore, they argued that their action of arresting him without a warrant was consistent with the legal definitions where such an arrest is made when people’s suspicion that an offense is being committed is reasonable.B.The Warrantless Search Incident to ArrestSome minutes later, following the arrest of Mr. Stairs, the police entered his home and conducted a search without a warrant. There was no securing of a search warrant nor were there any compelling or exigent circumstances that would permit the police to so intrude into Mr. Stairs’ abode after the arrest. There was no evidence or probable cause before the arrest that the officer’s thought drugs were in the house. However, they later entered the house and began conducting a search of the premises which they argued was incident to the lawful exercise of the arrest power. In Mr. Stairs’ house, officers also seized other drugs from the crystal order with a net weight exceeding ninety
grams. The crystal order was also found in the bag alongside other associated materials such as scales and plastic baggies linking them to drug trafficking. These materials were also removed during the seizure.Significantly, the one searched at Mr. stairs home could hardly have been said to have been in any case of search of his place under an emergency that would have exonerated the police from doing a search warrant application. Such reason may include the imminent danger of evidence being tampered with, or even a formal accusation where the officers thought the eager drugs were about to be conveniently disposed of at the john or stashed away. The police relied on their arrest of Mr. Stairs in order to conduct the search, he being a single point of conduct of their arrest and invoking the rule which lets the law enforcement officer search around the arrested person for reasons of evidence destruction. This warrantless search, according to the words used by the police, amounted to unconstitutional conduct: a breach of section 8 of the charter which prohibits unreasonable search warrant and the finding of warrant. In fact, the search was regarded as unreasonable and excessive towards the extent for which the police were lawful able without first having found Mr. Stairs' warrants.C.The Legal Issue at TrialWhat was contested extensively on behalf of Mr. Stairs during the trial and evidence stage was the use of the ninety grams of crystal methamphetamine which was discovered after the arrest of Mr. Stairs. The defense sustained that the search could not have been conducted legitimately considering his constitutional rights to privacy. They contended that the search fell short of the authorization reasonable expectations of a police authority as protected against unlawful searches under Section 8 of the Charter, and grossly infringed his Charter rights under section 24(2) which forbids admission of evidence procured from Charter abuses.
This starkly contradicted the decision made by the trial judge who left no stone unturned to ensure the evidence was satisfactorily collated for admission purposes. He opined that the police officers’ actions were convincing and overwhelmingly overshadowed Mr. Stairs’ right. According to him, the police responded to a reasonable belief that a threat existed, hence making it necessary to conduct a search after the arrest. To arrive at this decision, the trial judge utilized the Grant test (from R v Grant [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353) which addresses issues of relevancy regarding the admissibility of evidence in cases challenging the Charter. The trial judge concluded that although the search was technically unlawful who did say the officers acted in good faith and the societal interest in having the evidence admitted outweighed the violation of Mr. Stairs privacy rights. Therefore, the judge ruled that the evidence obtained from the unlawful search was admissible, and consequently Mr. Stairs was convicted of the possession of illegal drugs.D.Stairs AppealMr. Stairs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal on the ground that the trial judge had erred in the application of the Grant test and consideration on the harshness of the Charter breach was inadequate. On the contrary, Mr. Stairs submitted an argument that the police officers' good faith should not have been the basis for the decision on the admissibility of the evidence considering the considerable breach of his privacy rights. The Court of Appeal however agreed with the trial judge that police officers had good faith and that the public interest in seeing a case determined on its merits is of greater importance than the breach of constitutional rights of Mr. Stairs. The Court of Appeal observed that the severity of the Charter breach could not justify the exclusion of the evidence and as such, the appeal was dismissed.E. The Supreme Court Decision
So, this case went before the Supreme Court of Canada. The most crucial point that the Supreme Court was to consider was whether the evidence obtained from the breach of the law of a search incidental to arrest should be dispensed with in terms of the provisions of section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The question was whether the trial judge and the Court of Appeal made a mistake in how they applied the Grant test to the case at hand and how bi the nature of the violation of the Charter rights were such that the evidence should have been excluded.The Supreme Court, however, in a split decision reaffirmed the judgment of the lower courts. It found that although the Charter’s rights violation was serious, the good faith of the police officers because it was one of the major factors in the decision of Court. The Court determined that the possibility of awarding the case on its merits outweighs the potential | jeopardy of privacy and hence the evidence ought to be accepted. There are indeed quite profound consequences to be drawn from that decision, in relation to the interpretation and application of section 24(2) and also of the Grant test itself, and it is this reasoning that is at the centre of the appeal in this case.IssueThe paramount consideration in R v. Stair’s case is the issue of whether evidence acquired in the contravention pronounced in Section 8 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be allowed in the court under the Section 24(2). More specifically, the question is whether the evidence in respect of the search conducted on Mr. Stairs’ home whereby over 90 grams of crystal methamphetamine was found is admissible in evidence or it is not admissible because the police breached Mr. Stairs' rights as enshrined in the Charter when they conducted the search without a warrant. The legal problem is stated as that central to the Grant test, which was formulated by the Canadian Supreme Court on the case of R v. Grant (2009) when giving explanations to judges on
exclusion of evidence acquired through a Charter breach. Section 24(2) of the Charter provides that any evidence with respect to breach of an individual's rights may be excluded if letting it in would lower the integrity of justice.The intricacies of the legal questions indicate that there are salient issues that must be considered:1.Did the police abuse their arbitrary power over Mr. Stairs by performing a warrantless search of his home in a manner inconsistent with Section 8 of the Charter?2.Given the illegal nature in which the evidence was obtained, whether, the evidence obtained from the search ought to be admitted in evidence by the court or excluded under Section 24(2) of the Charter.3.Do you think the trial judge and the Court of Appeal, during the trial, applied the Grant test appropriately when weighing the possibility of admitting the evidence in Court? 4.Considering the police officers’ conduct as accepted in the police acting in good faith, should the court admit the evidence considering the mendacity of the Charter breach? A.Did Warrantless Search of Mr. Stairs’ House Write off Legal Neutrality as Emphasized Under Charter’s Section 8? The first issue is whether Mr. Stairs’ Section 8 rights were violated in that he was subject to several searches and seizures with no warrant which violated his rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which reads: “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Instead, Encumbered by a legal net.” Section 8 of the Charter mentions that only reasonable loss of privacy or integrity to a person could be suffered during search or seizure and in most cases the search of an individual’s premised is warrant centered. It is indeed correct to say as a rule, the presiding magistrate must issue a warrant, and all other searches are considered
unreasonable unless there is a special circumstance. Herein, the police did not have a warrant while searching the residence of Mr. Stairs, although they had no “cleaning up” or “emergency” moment which could have justified the raid. The police arrested Mr. Stairs in connection with drug trafficking and did not claim there was an emergency that would allow them to circumvent the general requirement for a warrant. Such a search was not conducted as an incident of arrest under the Criminal Code as it was deemed not to be necessary for the safety or as a means of preventing the loss or destruction of evidence.The key question then becomes whether the search was reasonable in the circumstances – where there was no valid warrant nor reasonable grounds to support one on reasonable belief – considering the reasonable expectation of privacy within section 8. There is no contest that the police went into Mr. Stairs house without his permission which in effect is confiscating his private property, such a search would in the normal course of events be held to be unreasonable under the Charter.B.As Per Section 24(2) of the Charter, Should the Evidence that has been Retrieved during the Search be Admissible?Broadly, this question stems from the assessment done in relation to Section 24(2). This is the question of whether evidence acquired in breach of a right can be excluded if the evidence adduced would overall bring the administration of justice to disrepute. This is an exercise in ethics in which a Court must seek to weigh in the balance the decision to admit the evidence against the prejudice that would have been sustained by the breach of the Charter. The Grant test lays out the framework for this analysis which departs from several factors, which include:
1. The seriousness of the Charter Infringement: There was a flagrant disregard for Mr. Stairs’ section 8 privacy rights as the police officers conducted a search without a warrant. The police conducted the search without a warrant and the search was in relation to use of force as a reasonable alternative. This is a direct breach of the Charter, and the level of the breach should in respect to exclusion be considered in the balance.2. The impact of breach on the accused’s rights: Secondly, in the case of Stairs’ Section 8 rights, he lost some drugs that were evidence found in his home. The evidence which was most important in the case was solely the drugs that were seized from Mr. Stairs, and this effectively detracted from his chances of self-representation. This action and the methods in which the materials were acquired are reasonable factors to consider in determining whether the evidence should be excluded. 3. The seriousness of the offense; that was committed the possession of methamphetamine equal to over ninety grams is an offence that is taken very seriously in Canadian law and the police themselves confirmed the amount as being that. It is however true that the use of the drugs was in the context of a serious crime but, this may warrant the inclusion of the evidence in the case. Nonetheless, the Charter breach needs to be measured, and the gravity of the offense as mentioned alone does not suffice the threshold for the Charter violation.4. The society's interest in an adjudication on the merits: It is in the public’s interest that in Stairs’ case be adjudicated, as it raises grave issues, and the public has an interest in seeing drug trafficking charges prosecuted. The Court must consider whether excluding the evidence would be detrimental to the public interest in the fair administration of justice in that there would be no trial of the issues in the case. C. Did the Trial Judge and Court of Appeal Err in Applying the Grant Test? The third issue concerns whether the Grant test as adopted by the two lower courts was indeed the
correct test to apply in the exclusion of the evidence in issue in each instance. In both instances, the lower courts upheld the admissibility of the evidence, arguing that there was no charter violation because the good faith of the police officers outweighed the Charter violation. The trial judge opined that the police acted in good faith because they were under the impression that they were operating within the law, and the Court of Appeal validated this point.In contrast, the Grant test lays emphasis on the seriousness of the Charter infringement, and it can also be contended that the officers’ honesty should not be considered adequate to rationalize the admission of the evidence in this case. But good faith of law enforcement is a factor that ought to be taken into consideration, although it may not be conclusive in the respect of justifying an infringement of individual’s Charter rights. The trial judge and the Court of Appeal may have not appreciated fully the implication of the activities of the police on Mr. Stairs’ exercise of his Charter rights.C.In View of the Police’s Good Faith Actions, Should the Evidence be Excluded? The Degree of Charter Violation Suffices.The final puzzle is whether the Charter breach, even when assessed objectively and considering the realities of the policing profession, is serious enough a breach to warrant the exclusion of evidence even though the officers acted in good faith. This issue required an appreciation of the competing interests; on one hand the actions of the police and on the other hand Mr. Stairs’ Charter rights. Even though the good faith of the officers in this case is a relevant aspect, it should not decisively shift the balance in favor of the obtaining of evidence through the warrantless search. The court must undertake an inquiry into the constitutional principles affected in the case such as the right to privacy and protection against unreasonable search or seizure. In the light of the circumstances of
the violation, the Charter violation in question ought to be accorded a high degree of importance in deciding whether to admit the evidence allows the administration of justice to be sullied.4. AnalysisIn short, this segment of the thesis analyzes the most important legal questions that arose in the case R v. Stairs, 2021 SCC 15. Of particular interest are the consequences of conducting a search in the absence of a warrant in light of Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the methods of the Grant test used to rule out evidence obtained contrary to the Charter in section 24(2) (b) violation cases. In the case at bar, however, the court is required to consider the gravity of the breach of the Charter, the extent of the violation’s effect – if any – on the accused’s rights, the severity of the offense, and the need to protect the wider public interest in ensuring that trial on criminal charges proceeds on the merits. This section will examine each factor separately and in detail, demonstrating how each of them relates to the facts of the case and how they lead to the conclusion of whether the evidence gained through the search performed without a warrant must be admitted or alternatively, excluded from the case.A.The Section 8 Violation: The Right to be Secure against Unreasonable Search and SeizureThe sec. 8 reproach asserts that “everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” This clause provides protection of one’s life, privacy, and personal association against state interference, in that people will not be subjected to the arbitrary, unjustified or severe searching and capturing of their possessions and places including their houses and property without proper grounds and justification. Indeed, every searching or capturing of a certain person or his/her property without a warrant is unreasonable in principle, except those that certain laws provide for. This in point form evidence suggests that the police took it upon themselves,
unconstitutionally, to search the said Mr. Stairs without a warrant. Fundamental questions arise as to the reasonableness of such search and to whether such search amounted to a search without a warrant in violation of section 8 of the Charter. Usually, a provision of a warrant serves to protect the people from unreasonable or unapproved searching through the assistance of police to invade people’s household from trespasses. As mentioned, there are exceptions to such requirements where the exigent circumstances or an individual’s consent applies. But there is no evidence in this case that the police were operating under those exceptions.The allegation made by the informant regarding Mr. Stairs’ link with drug trafficking was not a critical situation warranting an immediate intrusion. The police’s entrance into Mr. Stairs’ home and grabbing any proof of engaging in drug trafficking without a search warrant is outright contravention of Section 8. The requirement to have a warrant demonstrates that there will be an impartial assessment of the police's actions by a magistrate or a peace commissioner before any search is conducted. This breach of regulations somehow not only the police principles but also violated the fundamental rights of Mr. Stairs, to recognize his privacy and his security in his residence. Quite evidently, the violation of some of Mr. Stairs' rights provided by Section 8 cannot be considered as trivial, and it will be appreciated that such considerations are highly relevant in determining the merits of the case.B.The Exclusion of Evidence: Section 24(2) and the Grant TestIn cases where an infringement of Section 8 is discerned, the ensuing concern is if the evidence acquired from the unlawful search can be used in the court of law .As per Section 24(2) of the Charter where any law has been violated, the evidence obtained if presented abuse the due process then that evidence is deemed to be inefficient and unable to be used in court. The Grant test is this balancing device as the section refers to exclusion of evidence based on the Section
24(2) of the Canadian Charter – either reasonableness of the evidence needed to be possessed or suffered infringement. In the Grant Test, the Court examines four important research that must be carried out as part of the trial:1.The seriousness of the Charter violation,2.The impact on the accused’s Charter-protected interests,3.The seriousness of the offense,4.The public interest in having the case adjudicated on its merits.All the above factors have different relevance and importance in deciding on the admissibility of the evidence. The balancing of these competing interests is not mechanical or arithmetical but rather a matter of judgment in conjunction to prevailing circumstances. From this point the court must treat the case more comprehensively, stressing at the same time different interests of justice and fairness and safeguarding of specific rights.1.The seriousness of the Charter violationThe initial point that needs attention is the gravity of the Charter breach in question. The search without a warrant constitutes a gross contravention of Section 8, which is concerned with the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. The police conduct was purposeful, there were no exigent circumstances or other exceptions that could be invoked to validate the overriding of the warrant requirement. It is a matter of losing the warrant requirement that pertains to such a grave abuse of privacy.While blaming the seriousness of the violation, the court must assess for the type of the intrusion. The police officers searched in detail the home of Mr. Stairs and took away items which were related to drugs. Interfering into the private sphere of Mr. Stairs as such entity had been a breaching
of his right to privacy. The search was not regarded to have reasonable grounds or imminent danger and was done without a court order. Given the fact that the search was invasive and was conducted without a court order first having been obtained to allow it to proceed. The gravity of the violation so committed should Eden on evidence exclusion to be the overriding factor.2.The impact on the accused’s Charter-protected interestsThe second aspect to consider is the effect on the Charter Protected Rights of the accused. The abovementioned warrantless entry affected Mr. Stairs’ right to privacy and his right to be free from unreasonable searches. The seizure of crystal methamphetamine in his home was a pivotal factor in establishing the allegations against him for drug trafficking. This evidence was obtained illegally, without respecting the legal requirement for a warrant. The advancement of these charges is even more serious, given the fact that the police conduct in any case affected the Mr. Stairs’ guaranteed rights.The violation of the Charter's rights by the state has in a way a twofold impact on Mr. Stairs. Firstly, it prevented him from challenging the acquisition of how certain materials were produced, which lowered the integrity of the trial. Secondly, the use of evidence that was obtained through such violation was crucial to the case's submittal for trial, which makes the extent of the breach even worse. It can not be said that this is a case where the violation of the Charter was of a quantitatively insignificant nature or methodology or approach which resulted in obtaining noncritical evidence. On the contrary, Stand ‘s evidence invariably placed him in drug trafficking and indeed he was one of the key witnesses for the prosecution. Accordingly, the effects on the rights of the defendant are serious, and this factor comes out very strongly in the consideration for the exclusion of evidence.3.The seriousness of the offense
Oftentimes within emerging frameworks in criminal law jurisdictions oscillate around the concept of gravity of the violation. This is where the state proves the requisite mens rea and the actus reus, usually, a drug-related offense, which is highly detrimental to the society. There are drug trafficking crimes and with them murder, organized crimes and the former and an abuse of public health. For this issue, perpetration of the plan outweighs severity of the crime. When drug trafficking prosecution has a high success rate, general society does as well. Nonetheless, it remains a level. Also, the violation still stands on a balancing test as it is presumed to be an indirect violation of due process. Fundamental criminal principles cannot be bent to force a prosecution domestically or abroad, reinforcing unjust prosecution. The Charter was meant to insulate civilian civilians from the illegal activities of the state. So, on the one hand, we have a measure of sovereignty and on the other, we have a measure of individual rights for a society to function. This position is that crime here has been diminished in the language of punishment by the violation of the Charter and its infringement on rights of the plaintiff. Such a consideration is appropriate to them even in circumstances of a serious crime. 4.The public interest in having the case adjudicated on its merits. The last factor requires the community concern which are encapsulated in the concept of the Rule of Law in the adjudication of the case. There are clearly community expectations that the system deals effectively with serious crimes such as drug trafficking. There is a public concern in the concept of the Rule of Law throughout the world and that it is the global community in the tracking of criminal offenders.But on the other hand, unless this public objective of adjudication on the merits is subordinated to the preservation of the integrity of the criminal justice process and the enforcement of the Charter, expect a downward spiral of justice. The emphasised consideration has no relationship to common
sense. The emphasis here is that the concern about the integrity of legal processes and the respect for legality of police action is crucial. This, however, does not mean that this case must be tried on its merits, especially given the importance of preserving the Charter and protecting the rights of the accused by excluding evidence that was gathered unlawfully. It is essential to note that the public interest in law enforcement cannot override, in the hierarchy of competing values, the rule of procedural fairness and justice which relates to the individual even if harm to the community is substantial.C.Conclusion: The Grant Test as a Basis for Exclusion of Evidence Included in Section 24(2) Under CharterIn summary, applying the Grant factors to the situation in R v. Stairs, it is apparent that she was not able to conduct her warrantless search upholding constitutional principles which is the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed under Section 8 of the Charter. This infringement on Mr. Stairs’ rights is grave since the evidence recovered during this illegal search was paramount for the prosecution. Although the drug trafficking offense is a serious one, it cannot be emphasized enough that the will of the people to see people convicted of this offense has to be tempered with the rights of the accused. Given, however, the magnitude of the Charter violation and its effect on the defendant’s rights the evidence should be deemed inadmissible and should have been excluded under Section 24(2) of the Charter because editing the evidence would undermine the integrity of the justice system. This conclusion is consistent with the principles of fairness, justice and the rule of law which operate the Canadian legal system.To conclude, the ruling in R v. Stairs (2021 SCC 15) constitutes an egregious and serious error of law in respect of the application of Section 24 (2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly the exclusion of evidence obtained through unlawful search. The police’s “good faith”
belief, according to the Supreme Court, during the search was not weighed properly against the degree of the Charter violation, that of Mr. Stairs’ privacy under Section 8. The constitutional rights of Mr. Stairs should have determined the case, and the Constitution ought to have been the supreme law, but this has been distorted by the Courts.In this memorandum, the authors showed how the decision is in opposition to what was demonstrated before in the case of R v. Collins or R v. Simpson which stress on the aspect of privacy being violated due to unlawful searches. The facts do not imply that in this instance there was urgency or necessity to conduct the search, and even if warranted court would allow the harm to Mr. Stairs’ right of privacy, this memorandum advocates for an appeal as a corrective measure to the court’s error in failing to exclude the evidence. The appeal should maintain that the grievance on Mr. Stairs’ right is one which warrants exclusion of evidence, otherwise, the sanctity of the Charter and privacy guaranteed to individuals is undermined.
References•R v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265•R v. Simpson, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 255•R v. Pomeroy, 2017 SCC 15•R v. Stairs, 2021 SCC 15•European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8