R. v. Nguyen

R. v. Nguyen

Applicant had standing only to challenge his detention/arrest, s.10 compliance and identification procedures; he did not have standing to challenge the searches of the residences or electronic devices; initial interaction was a lawful investigative detention and approximately seven minutes later a lawful arrest under s.495; s.10 rights were provided appropriately (interpreter offered and Legal Aid contacted) and delay was justified by safety and operational concerns; photographing at scene and fingerprinting at detachment were lawful; application dismissed.

Citation
2013 BCSC 950
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: An Long Nguyen
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Charter Application (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter, Section 9 Charter, Section 10 Charter, Arrest and Detention, Investigative Detention, Standing, Identification Procedures (fingerprinting/photography), Search Warrant Scope, Right to Counsel
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Search and Seizure Evidence Section 8 Charter Section 9 Charter Section 10 Charter Arrest and Detention +5 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

An Long Nguyen

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Charter Application (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant was lawfully detained or arbitrarily arrested
  2. 2 Whether s.10 Charter rights were promptly and adequately provided (including interpreter and access to counsel)
  3. 3 Whether photographing the accused at the scene violated Charter rights

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant had standing only to challenge his detention/arrest, s.10 compliance and identification procedures; he did not have standing to challenge the searches of the residences or electronic devices; initial interaction was a lawful investigative detention and approximately seven minutes later a lawful arrest under s.495; s.10 rights were provided appropriately (interpreter offered and Legal Aid contacted) and delay was justified by safety and operational concerns; photographing at scene and fingerprinting at detachment were lawful; application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed