R. v. Brar

R. v. Brar

Excise improperly obtained material from the ITO but uphold the search warrant because independent, prior statements to patrol officers and observable facts provided a credibly based probability to authorize the warrant; statements to patrol officers at the home were voluntary and admissible; the accused were objectively detained at the police station and police failed to advise of s.10 rights, so clothing seized at the station, resulting DNA analysis and the record of calls made on the police‑provided phone are excluded under Charter s.24(2).

Citation
2011 BCSC 1098
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Shavinder Singh Brar; Accused: Amrit Singh Gill
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Second Degree Murder; Pre Trial Voir Dires on Admissibility and Warrant Validity / Voir Dire (pre Trial Admissibility and Warrant Validity Hearing)
Outcome
Mixed: search warrant upheld; patrol statements admitted; station detention and seizures breached Charter rights; clothing evidence and DNA analysis from clothing and the list of phone calls excluded.
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Charter S.10(a), Charter S.10(b), Charter S.24(2), Search Warrant Validity, Plain View Doctrine, Investigative Detention, Exclusion of Evidence, Voluntariness of Statements, Cellular Phone Records
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Search and Seizure Law Forensic/dna Evidence Charter S.7 Charter S.10(a) Charter S.10(b) +7 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Shavinder Singh Brar

Accused

Amrit Singh Gill

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Second Degree Murder; Pre Trial Voir Dires on Admissibility and Warrant Validity / Voir Dire (pre Trial Admissibility and Warrant Validity Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether information in the Information to Obtain derived from improperly obtained statements must be excised and whether the remaining information supports issuance of the search warrant
  2. 2 Whether patrol‑level statements given at the residence were given voluntarily and admissible
  3. 3 Whether the accused were detained at the police station such that Charter s.10 rights were engaged

Ratio Decidendi

Excise improperly obtained material from the ITO but uphold the search warrant because independent, prior statements to patrol officers and observable facts provided a credibly based probability to authorize the warrant; statements to patrol officers at the home were voluntary and admissible; the accused were objectively detained at the police station and police failed to advise of s.10 rights, so clothing seized at the station, resulting DNA analysis and the record of calls made on the police‑provided phone are excluded under Charter s.24(2).

Court Disposition

Mixed: search warrant upheld; patrol statements admitted; station detention and seizures breached Charter rights; clothing evidence and DNA analysis from clothing and the list of phone calls excluded.

Orders

  • Information to Obtain paragraphs derived from station questioning excised where improperly obtained but remaining ITO information sufficient to support warrant issuance; evidence seized pursuant to execution of the warrant admitted to Crown
  • Statements given to patrol officers at the Mouat Drive residence admitted as evidence