R. v. Walker and Pangowish

R. v. Walker and Pangowish

Statements made by Walker after arrest were excluded because the arrest and ensuing detention were for investigative purposes related to suspected violent crime and the police failed to provide s.10(b) Charter warnings; the seized pants and runners were admissible because they were non-conscriptive real evidence visible before and independent of the inculpatory statement, the Charter breach was not flagrantly abusive, and admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under the Collins factors.

Citation
2000 BCSC 299
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Corey Duane Walker; Accused: Shane James Pangowish
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Second Degree Murder / Voir Dire (admission of Evidence)
Outcome
Mr. Walker's statements to Constable Dorling ruled inadmissible; the pants and runners seized from Mr. Walker admitted into evidence.
Legal Topics
Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel, Charter S.8 Unreasonable Search, Charter S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Search Incidental to Arrest, Conscriptive and Derivative Evidence, Admissibility of Statements, Forensic Evidence Seizure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Search and Seizure Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel Charter S.8 Unreasonable Search Charter S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Search Incidental to Arrest +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Corey Duane Walker

Accused

Shane James Pangowish

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Second Degree Murder / Voir Dire (admission of Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr. Walker's statements to police after arrest are admissible given failure to provide s.10(b) Charter warnings
  2. 2 Whether the seizure of Mr. Walker's pants and runners was lawful as a search incidental to arrest or must be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the seized clothing was derivative (conscriptive) evidence causally connected to an involuntary inculpatory statement

Ratio Decidendi

Statements made by Walker after arrest were excluded because the arrest and ensuing detention were for investigative purposes related to suspected violent crime and the police failed to provide s.10(b) Charter warnings; the seized pants and runners were admissible because they were non-conscriptive real evidence visible before and independent of the inculpatory statement, the Charter breach was not flagrantly abusive, and admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under the Collins factors.

Court Disposition

Mr. Walker's statements to Constable Dorling ruled inadmissible; the pants and runners seized from Mr. Walker admitted into evidence.

Orders

  • Statements made by Mr. Walker following his arrest are excluded as inadmissible.
  • Pants and runners seized from Mr. Walker are admissible and may be entered into evidence.