R. v. Heffernan

R. v. Heffernan

The court held the officers had objectively and subjectively reasonable grounds to effect a de facto arrest based on observed handgun handling and radio information, and therefore the subsequent warrantless vehicle search was lawful as incidental to arrest; however, the Crown failed to prove the voluntariness of the accused's statement beyond a reasonable doubt because a key arresting officer did not testify and no adequate evidence explained how the accused came to make the statement, so the statement was excluded.

Citation
2017 BCSC 2628
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Alycia Heffernan
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (admissibility of Search and Voluntariness of Statement)
Outcome
Mixed: evidence from arrest and vehicle search admitted; statement of April 25, 2014 excluded as involuntary/not proven voluntary
Legal Topics
Section 8 Unreasonable Search, Section 9 Detention/arrest, Voluntariness of Statements, Search Incidental to Arrest, Duty to Call Material Witnesses
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Law Evidence Search and Seizure Police Powers Section 8 Unreasonable Search Section 9 Detention/arrest Voluntariness of Statements +2 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Alycia Heffernan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (admissibility of Search and Voluntariness of Statement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were there reasonable grounds to arrest the accused without a warrant?
  2. 2 Was the warrantless vehicle search incidental to a lawful arrest?
  3. 3 Was the accused's statement voluntary and admissible?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the officers had objectively and subjectively reasonable grounds to effect a de facto arrest based on observed handgun handling and radio information, and therefore the subsequent warrantless vehicle search was lawful as incidental to arrest; however, the Crown failed to prove the voluntariness of the accused's statement beyond a reasonable doubt because a key arresting officer did not testify and no adequate evidence explained how the accused came to make the statement, so the statement was excluded.

Court Disposition

Mixed: evidence from arrest and vehicle search admitted; statement of April 25, 2014 excluded as involuntary/not proven voluntary

Orders

  • Admit evidence obtained from vehicle search and as fruits of the arrest on April 24, 2014
  • Exclude the accused's statement given on April 25, 2014 as voluntariness not proven beyond a reasonable doubt