R. v. Huntley

R. v. Huntley

The detention of the accused was a pretextual single‑purpose stop to further a drug investigation rather than a legitimate dual‑purpose stop; therefore the detention was arbitrary and breached s.9 of the Charter, and searches conducted as a result of that detention were unreasonable and breached s.8 of the Charter.

Citation
2021 BCSC 149
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: David Huntley
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking; Charter Voir Dire / Voir Dire Pre Trial Ruling
Outcome
Voir dire finding: detention was pretextual and arbitrary; s.9 Charter breached; subsequent searches unreasonable; s.8 Charter breached.
Legal Topics
Charter S.9 Arbitrary Detention, Section 8 Unreasonable Search, Section 10(a) Right to Be Informed, S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Pretextual Stop, Search Incident to Arrest
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Charter S.9 Arbitrary Detention Section 8 Unreasonable Search Section 10(a) Right to Be Informed S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Pretextual Stop +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

David Huntley

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking; Charter Voir Dire / Voir Dire Pre Trial Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether detention for jaywalking was a pretext and thus arbitrary under s.9 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether searches following the detention were unreasonable under s.8 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether s.10(a) obligations to inform were engaged

Ratio Decidendi

The detention of the accused was a pretextual single‑purpose stop to further a drug investigation rather than a legitimate dual‑purpose stop; therefore the detention was arbitrary and breached s.9 of the Charter, and searches conducted as a result of that detention were unreasonable and breached s.8 of the Charter.

Court Disposition

Voir dire finding: detention was pretextual and arbitrary; s.9 Charter breached; subsequent searches unreasonable; s.8 Charter breached.

Orders

  • Charter voir dire ruling that the jaywalking stop was a pretext and constituted an arbitrary detention infringing s.9 of the Charter
  • Finding that searches following the arbitrary detention were unreasonable and infringed s.8 of the Charter