Background
In 1991, a young New Brunswick girl was found raped and murdered. A 17-year-old suspect, William Stillman, was arrested for the murder. Stillman's lawyer told the police that he did not consent to the taking of any bodily samples. Nevertheless, the police took an impression of his teeth, a hair sample, and saliva sample. As well, they took a paper tissue used by Stillman who had thrown it into the garbage while in custody.
In a six-to-three decision, with Major J writing a concurring opinion, the Court held that all the evidence collected was beyond the powers to search incident to arrest and that it was all "conscriptive" evidence and thus was in violation of section 8.
Reasons of the court
The majority's reasons were given by Cory J.
The case turned on whether the inclusion of evidence affected trial fairness. Cory re-examined the purpose of the trial fairness step of the Collins test, stating that:
- [its] primary purpose ... is to prevent an accused person whose Charter rights have been infringed from being forced or conscripted to provide evidence in the form of statements or bodily samples for the benefit of the state. It is because the accused is compelled ... to participate in the creation or discover of self-incriminating evidence ... that the admission of that evidence would generally tend to render the trial unfair.
Cory proposed a two-step approach to determine the effect of the admission of evidence on trial fairness.
- Can the evidence be classified as "conscriptive"? Namely, was the accused compelled to participate in the creation or discovery of the evidence?
- If so, was the evidence "discoverable"? Namely, would the evidence have been discovered by an alternate non-conscriptive means?
If the evidence was shown to be conscriptive and would not have been discovered by a non-conscriptive means then the evidence must be excluded for trial fairness, and none of the other factors of the Collins test need to be examined.
On the first step, the question is whether "the accused was compelled to make a statement or provide a bodily substance in violation of the Charter." The evidence must not have existed in a usable form prior to the taking of evidence. A murder weapon found at the scene would be non-conscriptive but a piece of clothing worn by the suspect would be conscriptive. Conscriptive evidence also includes "derivative evidence", which is evidence that was only discovered through other conscripted evidence. Physical evidence found as a result of a conscriptive statement is an example of derivative evidence.
On the second step, the courts allow conscriptive evidence if it can be shown to be "discoverable".
- the admission of conscriptive evidence will not render the trial unfair where the impugned evidence would have been discovered in the absence of the unlawful conscription of the accused. There are two principal bases upon which it could be demonstrated that the evidence would have been discovered. The first is where an independent source of the evidence exists. The second is where the discovery of the evidence was inevitable.
Dissent
McLachlin, L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ each gave their own dissenting opinions.
McLachlin first noted that the taking of bodily samples is a matter of section 8 of the Charter rather than section 7. The protection of section 7 against self-incrimination only extends to testimonial and derivative evidence but not physical evidence. To extend the section farther would go beyond the intended limits in both Canada and other comparable justice systems around the world.
McLachlin agreed with the majority that the taking of hair samples, buccal swabs, and dental impressions were serious violations under section 8. However, the collection of the tissue was not, as the tissue had been abandoned and it was not derivative evidence. Though the samples were created as a result of detention, the bodily state that they represent was not created by detention and exist outside of the detention.
A buccal swab, also known as buccal smear, is a way to collect DNA from the cells on the inside of a person's cheek. Buccal swabs are a relatively non-invasive way to collect DNA samples for testing. Buccal means cheek or mouth. It is very common in clinical trials and in law enforcement investigations where it can include or exclude individuals as suspects.
Section 24(2), McLachlin stated, requires balancing of all the circumstances of the case with the effect of admitting the evidence on the reputation of the system. The three set of factors in R v Collins are only convenient groupings of these circumstances that may be useful. So long as the effect of the admission of evidence on the system is balanced against the effect of the exclusion then the analysis is complete.
McLachlin rejected Cory's ruling that all evidence which affects trial fairness must be excluded. Such a rule is against the spirit of section 24(2) which intends to balance the alternate effects upon the repute of the system. It also mistakenly equates non-consensual participation with trial fairness. Lastly, it suggests that any amount of trial unfairness automatically outweighs any other possible factors that may come into play.
On the facts, McLachlin held that the lower courts properly weighed the factors and that they were correct in admitting the evidence.
This page is based on this
Wikipedia article Text is available under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
R v Wholesale Travel Group Inc [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the distinction between "true crime" and regulatory offences.
Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated. Some scholars have argued that it was actually section 24 that ensured that the Charter would not have the primary flaw of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights: Namely, Canadian judges would be reassured that they could indeed strike down statutes on the basis that they contradicted a bill of rights.
R v Clay [2003] 3 S.C.R. 735, 2003 SCC 75 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the prohibition to possess marijuana. The accused claimed that his section 7 Charter rights were violated. The Court dismissed the claim.
R v Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 1987 SCC 11 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 8 and was a leading case on section 24(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 which allowed for the exclusion of evidence upon infringing the Charter. The Collins test for section 24(2) was developed for determining if the administration of justice was brought into disrepute by the inclusion of the evidence. The test was later replaced in R. v. Grant.
R v Daviault [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the availability of the defence of intoxication for "general intent" criminal offences. The Leary rule which eliminated the defence was found unconstitutional in violation of both section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, intoxication can only be used as a defence where it is so extreme that it is akin to automatism or insanity.
Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. This includes both criminal as well as regulatory offences, as it provides rights for those accused by the state for public offences. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.
R v Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199, is a 1990 appeal heard before the Supreme Court of Canada which established the criteria and standards by which Canadian courts judge whether an accused's right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 11(b) "to be tried within a reasonable time" has been infringed.
R v Hebert [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on an accused's right to silence under section seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
R v Marshall; R v Bernard 2005 SCC 43 is a leading Aboriginal rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court narrowed the test from R. v. Marshall for determining the extent of constitutional protection upon Aboriginal practices. The Court held that there was no right to commercial logging granted in the "Peace and Friendship treaties of 1760", the same set of treaties where the right to commercial fishing was granted in the R. v. Marshall decision. This decision also applied and developed the test for aboriginal title from Delgamuukw v British Columbia.
R v Ruzic, [2001] 1 SCR 687 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the common law defence of duress and constitutionality of the defence under section 17 of the Criminal Code. The Court held that section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that the defence of duress be available to an accused even when they were not under immediate threat of bodily harm at the time the offence was committed.
R v Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court struck-down a rape-shield provision of the Criminal Code as it violated the right to "full answer and defence" under sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case was decided with R v Gayme.
R v Lucas is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the criminal offence of defamatory libel. The Court held that the Criminal Code offence of defamatory libel infringed the constitutional protection of freedom of expression under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the offence was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under Section 1 of the Charter.
Duke v R [1972] S.C.R. 917 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the Canadian Bill of Rights, concerning the right of an accused to make full answer and defence to a criminal charge.
R v Marquard, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223, is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the admissibility of expert testimony.
R v Harrison, 2009 SCC 34 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision was a companion case of R v Grant, and applied the Supreme Court's new test to determine when evidence obtained from a Charter breach should be excluded.
R v Kang-Brown, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456, 2008 SCC 18, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute. In this case, a suspect's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were violated when a police officer stopped him at a bus station and sniffer-dog searched his bag finding drugs in his possession.
R v AM, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 569, 2008 SCC 19, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute. In this case, a student's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were violated when a police officer sniffer-dog searched his unattended backpack in the gymnasium of his school finding drugs in his possession.
R v Cook, [1998] 2 SCR 597, is a leading Charter decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court held that Canadian police located in the United States were still subject to the Charter when interrogating a suspect for a murder in Canada.
R v Nur 2015 SCC 15 is a Canadian constitutional law case, concerning the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences for firearm offences.
