R. v. Karaim

R. v. Karaim

The breaches of ss.9 and 10 were inadvertent, minor and of low gravity; the impact on the accused's Charter interests was minimal and fleeting; society's interest in adducing the officers' observations as significant circumstantial evidence strongly favored admission; on balance a reasonable informed person would not conclude that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, therefore the s.24(2) application fails and the evidence is admissible.

Citation
2023 BCSC 72
Parties
Crown/prosecutor: Rex; Accused: Alina Marie Karaim; Co Accused: Darren Michael Kinney
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charter S.24(2) Exclusion Application / Voir Dire / Pre Trial Charter Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; evidence of police observations of the purse admitted.
Legal Topics
Charter S.24(2), Detention S.9, Right to Counsel S.10, Exclusion of Evidence, Search Incident to Vehicle Search
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Administrative Law Charter S.24(2) Detention S.9 Right to Counsel S.10 Exclusion of Evidence +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Crown/prosecutor

Alina Marie Karaim

Accused

Darren Michael Kinney

Co Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charter S.24(2) Exclusion Application / Voir Dire / Pre Trial Charter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police officers' observations of the contents of Ms. Karaim's purse should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter following breaches of ss.9 and 10
  2. 2 Whether a psychological detention occurred when the purse was searched
  3. 3 Whether the Charter breaches were sufficiently serious to require exclusion

Ratio Decidendi

The breaches of ss.9 and 10 were inadvertent, minor and of low gravity; the impact on the accused's Charter interests was minimal and fleeting; society's interest in adducing the officers' observations as significant circumstantial evidence strongly favored admission; on balance a reasonable informed person would not conclude that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, therefore the s.24(2) application fails and the evidence is admissible.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; evidence of police observations of the purse admitted.

Orders

  • Application to exclude evidence of the officers' observations of the contents of Ms. Karaim's purse is dismissed