R. v. Mayo

R. v. Mayo

The detention exceeded lawful investigative detention because the officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect Mayo was connected to an offence; the officer conducted a search beyond a justified protective pat-down and failed to advise of s.10(b) rights; these Charter breaches (s.9, s.10(b), s.8) were serious and their impact substantial, and under s.24(2) considering Grant the statement must be excluded as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Citation
2012 NSPC 53
Parties
Crown: R.; Accused: Shamus Mayo
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (pre Trial Admissibility Hearing)
Outcome
Statement of accused excluded; Court found Charter breaches: s.9, s.10(b) and s.8.
Legal Topics
Investigative Detention, Search Incident to Detention, Right to Counsel (s.10(b)), Charter Breach Remedy (s.24(2) Exclusion), Roadside Screening Tests
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law (charter) Evidence Motor Vehicle Law Investigative Detention Search Incident to Detention Right to Counsel (s.10(b)) Charter Breach Remedy (s.24(2) Exclusion) +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Crown

Shamus Mayo

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (pre Trial Admissibility Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interaction amounted to an investigative detention lawfully authorized
  2. 2 Whether the officer complied with s.10(b) obligations to inform detainee of right to counsel
  3. 3 Whether the search exceeded a protective pat-down and violated s.8

Ratio Decidendi

The detention exceeded lawful investigative detention because the officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect Mayo was connected to an offence; the officer conducted a search beyond a justified protective pat-down and failed to advise of s.10(b) rights; these Charter breaches (s.9, s.10(b), s.8) were serious and their impact substantial, and under s.24(2) considering Grant the statement must be excluded as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Court Disposition

Statement of accused excluded; Court found Charter breaches: s.9, s.10(b) and s.8.

Orders

  • Exclude the accused's statement from evidence