R. v. Routledge

R. v. Routledge

Court found a Section 8 breach (warrants executed on first day of between-dates authorization) but on balance under s.24(2) admission of the seized evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute because the breach was not serious, police acted in good faith relying on reliable information and judicial authorization, intrusion was not at the extreme end given warrants and specificity, and society's interest in adjudicating the serious drug charges outweighed reasons for exclusion; therefore evidence is admitted for trial.

Citation
2011 NSPC 49
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Raymond J. Routledge
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal (controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.5(2)) / Pre Trial Charter S.24(2) Admissibility Hearing
Outcome
Section 8 Charter breach found; evidence NOT excluded under s.24(2); evidence admitted for trial.
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter (unreasonable Search), Section 24(2) Charter (exclusion of Evidence), Search Warrant Execution Dates, Between Dates Warrant Defects, Police Good Faith and Conduct
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Search and Seizure Evidence Section 8 Charter (unreasonable Search) Section 24(2) Charter (exclusion of Evidence) Search Warrant Execution Dates Between Dates Warrant Defects +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Raymond J. Routledge

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.5(2)) / Pre Trial Charter S.24(2) Admissibility Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether execution of warrants on the first day of a listed between-dates authorization constituted a Section 8 Charter breach
  2. 2 Whether evidence obtained should be excluded under s.24(2) despite conceded s.8 breach
  3. 3 Whether police conduct was negligent, wilful, or in good faith and the seriousness of the breach

Ratio Decidendi

Court found a Section 8 breach (warrants executed on first day of between-dates authorization) but on balance under s.24(2) admission of the seized evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute because the breach was not serious, police acted in good faith relying on reliable information and judicial authorization, intrusion was not at the extreme end given warrants and specificity, and society's interest in adjudicating the serious drug charges outweighed reasons for exclusion; therefore evidence is admitted for trial.

Court Disposition

Section 8 Charter breach found; evidence NOT excluded under s.24(2); evidence admitted for trial.

Orders

  • Evidence seized under the warrants is admissible and will be admitted at the trial proper.