R. v. Lopez

R. v. Lopez

The court found the force used by each officer was subjectively believed to be necessary and objectively reasonable in the circumstances, so there was no s.7 breach; there was an implementational breach of s.10(b) due to an almost four‑hour delay in access to counsel, but no remedy was warranted because no evidence flowed from the breach and the police acted in good faith; defence application for a stay was dismissed.

Citation
2016 BCSC 1359
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Tyler Lopez
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trafficking and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking / Voir Dire (charter Application)
Outcome
Defence application dismissed; no Charter s.7 breach; s.10(b) implementational breach found but no remedy ordered
Legal Topics
Charter S.7 Security of the Person, Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel, Use of Force by Police, Criminal Code S.25 Justification, Remedies for Charter Breaches
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Police Conduct Charter S.7 Security of the Person Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel Use of Force by Police Criminal Code S.25 Justification +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Tyler Lopez

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trafficking and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking / Voir Dire (charter Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police used excessive force amounting to a breach of s.7 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether delay in providing access to counsel breached s.10(b) of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether a remedy (stay or exclusion) is required for any breach

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the force used by each officer was subjectively believed to be necessary and objectively reasonable in the circumstances, so there was no s.7 breach; there was an implementational breach of s.10(b) due to an almost four‑hour delay in access to counsel, but no remedy was warranted because no evidence flowed from the breach and the police acted in good faith; defence application for a stay was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defence application dismissed; no Charter s.7 breach; s.10(b) implementational breach found but no remedy ordered

Orders

  • Defence application for a stay of proceedings dismissed
  • No exclusion of evidence ordered