R. v. Law

R. v. Law

The s.24(2) balancing found both Charter breaches (warrant non-compliant with Vu and the unauthorised search of the lobby-seized phone) fell at the less serious end of the spectrum because police acted in good faith on unsettled law; although the privacy impact was significant, society's interest in reliable,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 BCSC 2000
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Ying Ho Raymond Law
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charter S.24(2) Application / Exclusion Application Following Voir Dire
Outcome
Application under s.24(2) dismissed; impugned evidence admitted
Legal Topics
Section 24(2) Exclusion, Section 8 Unreasonable Search, Section 10(b) Right to Counsel, Search Warrants, Electronic Device Searches, Publication Ban
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Search and Seizure Evidence Section 24(2) Exclusion Section 8 Unreasonable Search Section 10(b) Right to Counsel Search Warrants +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Ying Ho Raymond Law

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charter S.24(2) Application / Exclusion Application Following Voir Dire

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence obtained from warrantless searches of electronic devices should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the search warrant authorized the search of the contents of electronic devices in light of R. v. Vu
  3. 3 Whether the Samsung cell phone seized in the lobby was covered by the apartment search warrant

Ratio Decidendi

The s.24(2) balancing found both Charter breaches (warrant non-compliant with Vu and the unauthorised search of the lobby-seized phone) fell at the less serious end of the spectrum because police acted in good faith on unsettled law; although the privacy impact was significant, society's interest in reliable, central evidence outweighed exclusion, so the exclusion application was dismissed and the evidence admitted.

Court Disposition

Application under s.24(2) dismissed; impugned evidence admitted

Orders

  • Application to exclude evidence under s.24(2) dismissed
  • Evidence obtained from the warrantless searches admitted for use at trial