R. v. LeRue

R. v. LeRue

Search of LeRue's van violated s.8 because officers did not have established reasonable grounds under s.99(1)(f) and the accused's consent was not shown to be informed and voluntary; however the seized cigarettes were admitted under s.24(2) because they would have been discoverable by lawful searches at the terminal exit, the breach was not serious, and admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, leading to conviction under the Revenue Act.

Citation
2008 NSPC 29
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Frank LeRue
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution Under Provincial Revenue Act / Trial Decision (conviction)
Outcome
Convicted of offences contrary to section 39(1)(a) of the Revenue Act
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter (unreasonable Search and Seizure), Informer Privilege, Consent to Search, Section 99 Customs Act (search Powers), Section 24(2) Charter (exclusion of Evidence)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law (charter) Customs and Revenue Law Search and Seizure Law Section 8 Charter (unreasonable Search and Seizure) Informer Privilege Consent to Search Section 99 Customs Act (search Powers) +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 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Frank LeRue

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution Under Provincial Revenue Act / Trial Decision (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the warrantless search of the accused's vehicle violated section 8 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the accused's consent to the search was valid
  3. 3 Whether the identity of the confidential informer had to be disclosed

Ratio Decidendi

Search of LeRue's van violated s.8 because officers did not have established reasonable grounds under s.99(1)(f) and the accused's consent was not shown to be informed and voluntary; however the seized cigarettes were admitted under s.24(2) because they would have been discoverable by lawful searches at the terminal exit, the breach was not serious, and admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, leading to conviction under the Revenue Act.

Court Disposition

Convicted of offences contrary to section 39(1)(a) of the Revenue Act

Orders

  • Evidence of seized cigarettes admitted under s.24(2) Charter
  • Conviction entered on counts of possession of untaxed tobacco and possession of tobacco not bearing prescribed markings (Revenue Act s.39(1)(a))