R. v. James

R. v. James

A constitutionally significant detention began by 12:29 a.m. (no later than after backup arrived at 12:28 a.m. and when the officer went to run database checks). The police satisfied s.10(a) because the reason for the investigative detention (home invasion) was conveyed, but breached s.10(b) because counsel was not given until 12:40 a.m., about 12 minutes after the detention began and after the applicant furnished a false name and identity information. Despite the s.10(b) breach, the subsequent arrest for obstruction was objectively reasonable: in the totality of the circumstances (database searches returning no antecedents or near-matching conflicting data, inability to corroborate...

Citation
2017 BCSC 2593
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused Co Accused: Victor Junior James; Accused Applicant: Stephen Smith
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charter Application Arising From Home Invasion Investigation / Voir Dire on Charter Application (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application granted in part: court found detention began by 12:29 a.m.; no breach of s.10(a); breach of s.10(b) (delayed provision of counsel); arrest for obstruction held lawful and s.9 not infringed on that basis; further submissions on s.24(2) reserved.
Legal Topics
Detention, Arrest, Right to Counsel, Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Obstruction of a Peace Officer, Investigative Detention
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Detention Arrest Right to Counsel Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Obstruction of a Peace Officer +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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Victor Junior James

Accused Co Accused

Stephen Smith

Accused Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charter Application Arising From Home Invasion Investigation / Voir Dire on Charter Application (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant was detained for the purposes of ss.9 and 10 of the Charter and, if so, when that detention began
  2. 2 Whether police breached s.10(a) by failing to promptly inform of reasons for detention
  3. 3 Whether police breached s.10(b) by failing to inform of and provide access to counsel without delay

Ratio Decidendi

A constitutionally significant detention began by 12:29 a.m. (no later than after backup arrived at 12:28 a.m. and when the officer went to run database checks). The police satisfied s.10(a) because the reason for the investigative detention (home invasion) was conveyed, but breached s.10(b) because counsel was not given until 12:40 a.m., about 12 minutes after the detention began and after the applicant furnished a false name and identity information. Despite the s.10(b) breach, the subsequent arrest for obstruction was objectively reasonable: in the totality of the circumstances (database searches returning no antecedents or near-matching conflicting data, inability to corroborate...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: court found detention began by 12:29 a.m.; no breach of s.10(a); breach of s.10(b) (delayed provision of counsel); arrest for obstruction held lawful and s.9 not infringed on that basis; further submissions on s.24(2) reserved.

Orders

  • Found detention began at or shortly after 12:28-12:29 a.m.
  • Found no breach of s.10(a) (reason for detention conveyed)