R. v. Sipes

R. v. Sipes

The trial judge held that he was bound to follow the considered decision in R. v. Tse that s.184.4 violates s.8 of the Charter and is not saved by s.1, and that absent exceptional circumstances it is in the interests of justice and judicial comity to follow a same-court precedent; on that basis he declined to re-litigate the issue and proceeded on the footing that s.184.4 is constitutionally invalid as declared in Tse.

Citation
2009 BCSC 285
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Dale Gordon Sipes; Accused: Leslie Podolski; Accused: Sheldon Richard O'Donnell; Accused: Peter Manolakos; Accused: Douglas Corey Brownell
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal (charter Challenge) / Pre Trial (constitutional Application)
Outcome
The judge followed R. v. Tse and treated s.184.4 of the Criminal Code as constitutionally invalid for the purposes of this proceeding; he will hear further submissions on any additional findings and on exclusion of evidence under s.24(2).
Legal Topics
Section 184.4 Criminal Code (warrantless Interception), S.8 Charter (unreasonable Search and Seizure), S.1 Charter (oakes Analysis), S.24(2) Charter (exclusion of Evidence), Stare Decisis Among Trial Judges, Judicial Discretion, Warrantless Wiretap/interception
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Administrative Law Section 184.4 Criminal Code (warrantless Interception) S.8 Charter (unreasonable Search and Seizure) S.1 Charter (oakes Analysis) S.24(2) Charter (exclusion of Evidence) +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Dale Gordon Sipes

Accused

Leslie Podolski

Accused

Sheldon Richard O'Donnell

Accused

Peter Manolakos

Accused

Douglas Corey Brownell

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (charter Challenge) / Pre Trial (constitutional Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.184.4 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional as infringing s.8 of the Charter and not justified under s.1
  2. 2 Whether a trial judge of the same court is bound to follow a prior decision of another trial judge (Re Hansard Spruce Mills) and what exceptions apply
  3. 3 Whether evidence obtained under s.184.4 should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge held that he was bound to follow the considered decision in R. v. Tse that s.184.4 violates s.8 of the Charter and is not saved by s.1, and that absent exceptional circumstances it is in the interests of justice and judicial comity to follow a same-court precedent; on that basis he declined to re-litigate the issue and proceeded on the footing that s.184.4 is constitutionally invalid as declared in Tse.

Court Disposition

The judge followed R. v. Tse and treated s.184.4 of the Criminal Code as constitutionally invalid for the purposes of this proceeding; he will hear further submissions on any additional findings and on exclusion of evidence under s.24(2).

Orders

  • Court follows R. v. Tse, 2008 BCSC 211, and regards s.184.4 as constitutionally invalid as declared in Tse
  • Court will hear submissions and evidence concerning any other findings of Davies J. to be followed and whether evidence obtained by police should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter