HMTQ v. Mann

HMTQ v. Mann

The accused had a sufficient privacy interest to challenge the search; the warrantless entry was unreasonable under s.8 because exigent circumstances had passed and the police exaggerated and relied primarily on finding a grow operation; the subsequent warrant was tainted by the unlawful search and would not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2003 BCSC 1725
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Mohan Singh Mann; Accused: Rashinder Singh Mann
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Voir Dire on Admissibility of Evidence Under S.8 and S.24(2) Charter
Outcome
Evidence obtained in the warrantless search and the subsequent search under warrant excluded pursuant to s.24(2) of the Charter
Legal Topics
Section 8 Unreasonable Search, Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Search Warrants, Standing to Challenge Search, Exigent Circumstances, Privacy in Dwelling House
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Administrative Law Section 8 Unreasonable Search Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Search Warrants Standing to Challenge Search +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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Mohan Singh Mann

Accused

Rashinder Singh Mann

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Voir Dire on Admissibility of Evidence Under S.8 and S.24(2) Charter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused gave adequate notice of Charter challenge
  2. 2 Whether accused had standing to challenge the search
  3. 3 Whether the warrantless entry/search was reasonable under s.8

Ratio Decidendi

The accused had a sufficient privacy interest to challenge the search; the warrantless entry was unreasonable under s.8 because exigent circumstances had passed and the police exaggerated and relied primarily on finding a grow operation; the subsequent warrant was tainted by the unlawful search and would not necessarily have issued when corrected; admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, so evidence obtained in the warrantless search and under the warrant is excluded under s.24(2).

Court Disposition

Evidence obtained in the warrantless search and the subsequent search under warrant excluded pursuant to s.24(2) of the Charter

Orders

  • Exclude evidence seized in the warrantless entry and in the subsequent search under warrant; evidence is therefore not admissible at trial