R. v. Oyston

R. v. Oyston

The arrest was unlawful because the Crown failed to establish objective reasonable and probable grounds: the officer's observations were unreliable (distance 25–50 yards, dusk, no binoculars), lacked contemporaneous notes and detailed description, and were equally consistent with innocent explanations; consequently the search incident to arrest was unlawful; additionally the officer breached s.10(a) by not informing the accused of reasons for arrest and breached s.10(b) both in failing to discharge the Prosper secondary informational duty after the accused declined a roadside call and in failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel.

Citation
2019 BCSC 264
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Jonathan Riley Oyston
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Voir Dire (charter Challenges) / Voir Dire (pre Trial)
Outcome
Voir dire ruling: Charter breaches found — arrest and search unlawful; s.10(a) and s.10(b) breaches established; admissibility under s.24(2) deferred for Crown submissions
Legal Topics
Charter S.8, Charter S.9, Charter S.10(a), Charter S.10(b), Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Right to Counsel, Prosper Warning, Arrest Law, Search Incidental to Arrest, Section 24(2)
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Search and Seizure Charter S.8 Charter S.9 Charter S.10(a) Charter S.10(b) +6 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 7 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Jonathan Riley Oyston

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Voir Dire (charter Challenges) / Voir Dire (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether arrest without warrant was supported by objective reasonable and probable grounds
  2. 2 Whether search incident to arrest was lawful
  3. 3 Whether s.10(a) right to be informed of reasons was breached

Ratio Decidendi

The arrest was unlawful because the Crown failed to establish objective reasonable and probable grounds: the officer's observations were unreliable (distance 25–50 yards, dusk, no binoculars), lacked contemporaneous notes and detailed description, and were equally consistent with innocent explanations; consequently the search incident to arrest was unlawful; additionally the officer breached s.10(a) by not informing the accused of reasons for arrest and breached s.10(b) both in failing to discharge the Prosper secondary informational duty after the accused declined a roadside call and in failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel.

Court Disposition

Voir dire ruling: Charter breaches found — arrest and search unlawful; s.10(a) and s.10(b) breaches established; admissibility under s.24(2) deferred for Crown submissions

Orders

  • Arrest of Jonathan Riley Oyston on April 2, 2016 declared unlawful (breach of s.9)
  • Search incident to that arrest declared unlawful (breach of s.8)