R. v. Haire

R. v. Haire

Applying the Grant factors, the court found the ITO omissions constituted a Charter s.8 breach but the police conduct was closer to the good‑faith/blameless end of the spectrum, the intrusion was serious but the seized digital evidence was reliable and determinative; on balance admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, so the s.24(2) application to exclude fails.

Citation
2021 BCSC 2367
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Michael Larence Haire
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire on S.24(2) Admissibility Following S.8 Charter Breach Determination
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence under s.24(2) dismissed; evidence admitted
Legal Topics
Charter S.8, Charter S.24(2), Search Warrant, Information to Obtain (ito), Digital Device Forensics, Child Pornography Offences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Search and Seizure Digital Privacy Charter S.8 Charter S.24(2) Search Warrant +3 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Michael Larence Haire

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire on S.24(2) Admissibility Following S.8 Charter Breach Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrant ITO was sufficient to authorize the search
  2. 2 Whether the warrant and subsequent search breached s.8 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether evidence obtained in breach of the Charter should be excluded under s.24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the Grant factors, the court found the ITO omissions constituted a Charter s.8 breach but the police conduct was closer to the good‑faith/blameless end of the spectrum, the intrusion was serious but the seized digital evidence was reliable and determinative; on balance admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, so the s.24(2) application to exclude fails.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence under s.24(2) dismissed; evidence admitted

Orders

  • Application to exclude evidence dismissed; evidence admitted under s.24(2)