R. v. Oakley

R. v. Oakley

Material omissions and misleading assertions in the Information to Obtain (incorrect employment assertion and overstated linkage to a vehicle/convicted person) required expunging those parts; once expunged the remaining odour evidence was not independently verifiable or localized to the subject dwelling and thus insufficient to support the warrant, rendering the search unreasonable under s.8 of the Charter and the obtained evidence inadmissible under s.24(2); indictment dismissed.

Citation
2002 BCSC 1837
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: David Ernest Oakley
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Search Warrant; Ruling and Trial Dismissal
Outcome
Search unreasonable; evidence excluded; indictment dismissed
Legal Topics
Search Warrant Validity, Informant Reliability and Omissions, Localization of Odour Evidence, Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2) of the Charter
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Search and Seizure Charter Law Search Warrant Validity Informant Reliability and Omissions Localization of Odour Evidence Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2) of the Charter

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

David Ernest Oakley

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Search Warrant; Ruling and Trial Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Information to Obtain provided reasonable and independently verifiable grounds to justify a search warrant
  2. 2 Whether material omissions or misleading statements in the Information to Obtain vitiated the reliability of the informant's evidence
  3. 3 Whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter due to an unreasonable search

Ratio Decidendi

Material omissions and misleading assertions in the Information to Obtain (incorrect employment assertion and overstated linkage to a vehicle/convicted person) required expunging those parts; once expunged the remaining odour evidence was not independently verifiable or localized to the subject dwelling and thus insufficient to support the warrant, rendering the search unreasonable under s.8 of the Charter and the obtained evidence inadmissible under s.24(2); indictment dismissed.

Court Disposition

Search unreasonable; evidence excluded; indictment dismissed

Orders

  • Reference to Ford pick-up and related conviction expunged from Information to Obtain
  • Reference to accused being unemployed expunged from Information to Obtain