R. v. G.C.

R. v. G.C.

The officer's split-second detention and protective search, including reaching into pockets to remove small hard objects reasonably suspected could be weapons in the context of executing a search warrant, did not violate section 8; failure to inform the detainee of reasons for detention breached section 10(a) but did not breach section 10(b) given the state of the law and minimal delay to advise of counsel; on balance under section 24(2) the drugs are not excluded and are admissible.

Citation
2010 NSPC 10
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused (young Person): G.C.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal (controlled Drugs and Substances Act) / Trial With Charter Voir Dire (decision on S.8, S.10 and S.24(2))
Outcome
Court found no section 8 breach; found breach of section 10(a) but no breach of section 10(b); denied exclusion under section 24(2); drugs seized admitted into evidence.
Legal Topics
Investigative Detention, Protective Pat Down Searches (r V Mann), Section 8 Charter Search and Seizure, Section 10(a) Reasons for Detention, Section 10(b) Right to Counsel, Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Youth Justice Investigative Detention Protective Pat Down Searches (r V Mann) Section 8 Charter Search and Seizure Section 10(a) Reasons for Detention +2 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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

G.C.

Accused (young Person)

Procedural Posture

Criminal (controlled Drugs and Substances Act) / Trial With Charter Voir Dire (decision on S.8, S.10 and S.24(2))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the warrantless search and pocket intrusion a reasonable protective search under section 8 of the Charter?
  2. 2 Were section 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights (reasons for detention and right to counsel) breached during the investigative detention?
  3. 3 If Charter breaches occurred, should the seized drugs be excluded under section 24(2)?

Ratio Decidendi

The officer's split-second detention and protective search, including reaching into pockets to remove small hard objects reasonably suspected could be weapons in the context of executing a search warrant, did not violate section 8; failure to inform the detainee of reasons for detention breached section 10(a) but did not breach section 10(b) given the state of the law and minimal delay to advise of counsel; on balance under section 24(2) the drugs are not excluded and are admissible.

Court Disposition

Court found no section 8 breach; found breach of section 10(a) but no breach of section 10(b); denied exclusion under section 24(2); drugs seized admitted into evidence.

Orders

  • Evidence seized from G.C.'s pockets (cocaine and related items) admitted into evidence
  • Proceed on the included offence of simple possession of cocaine (s.4(1) CDSA)