R. v. Patterson

R. v. Patterson

The court found the roadside stop and pat‑down were lawful and did not breach s.7/s.8; there was a breach of s.10(b) once the police had control and began the residence search (delay in allowing counsel from 5:50 to 7:30 was unjustified), but the breach was not flagrant and the evidence seized at the residence was admissible under s.24(2); no abuse of process was established; accused convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Citation
2004 BCSC 355
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Darrin John Patterson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Controlled Substances (trafficking) / Trial (voir Dire and Conviction)
Outcome
Accused found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking; evidence from roadside and residence admitted; no stay or abuse‑of‑process remedy granted.
Legal Topics
Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel, Charter S.7 and S.8 Search and Liberty, Charter S.24(1) and S.24(2) Remedies, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.5(2), Motor Vehicle Act S.79 and S.95, Offence Act Telephone Access, Search Warrants, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Abuse of Process
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Search and Seizure Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel Charter S.7 and S.8 Search and Liberty Charter S.24(1) and S.24(2) Remedies Controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.5(2) +5 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Darrin John Patterson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Controlled Substances (trafficking) / Trial (voir Dire and Conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the roadside stop, pat‑down and arrest lawful under s.7/s.8?
  2. 2 Was the accused denied s.10(b) right to counsel and, if so, when did the breach occur?
  3. 3 Should proceedings be stayed as abuse of process or for incommunicado detention under s.24(1)?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the roadside stop and pat‑down were lawful and did not breach s.7/s.8; there was a breach of s.10(b) once the police had control and began the residence search (delay in allowing counsel from 5:50 to 7:30 was unjustified), but the breach was not flagrant and the evidence seized at the residence was admissible under s.24(2); no abuse of process was established; accused convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking; evidence from roadside and residence admitted; no stay or abuse‑of‑process remedy granted.

Orders

  • Voir dire evidence to be admitted at trial
  • Evidence seized at roadside and at residence admitted