R. v. Bradley

R. v. Bradley

On the facts accepted by the trial judge, the passenger was not under significant physical or psychological restraint when asked to provide his name during a lawful traffic stop; the request was a voluntary identification request made for officer safety and CPIC checks and did not amount to arbitrary detention under s.9 or trigger s.10 rights; the trial judge’s findings contained no palpable and overriding error and the conviction is upheld.

Citation
2007 NSSC 327
Parties
Appellant/accused: Jason Bradley; Respondent/crown: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Summary Conviction Appeal / Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Detention, Investigative Detention, Right to Counsel (s.10), Arbitrary Detention (s.9), Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2)), Search and Seizure (s.8), Recognizance Breach
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Detention Investigative Detention Right to Counsel (s.10) Arbitrary Detention (s.9) +3 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Bradley

Appellant/accused

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent/crown

Procedural Posture

Summary Conviction Appeal / Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a passenger in a lawfully stopped vehicle is detained for Charter purposes when asked to provide his name
  2. 2 Whether the request for identification converted a lawful traffic stop into an arbitrary detention contrary to s.9 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether s.10 rights to counsel were engaged or violated by not advising the accused of counsel before asking for identification

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts accepted by the trial judge, the passenger was not under significant physical or psychological restraint when asked to provide his name during a lawful traffic stop; the request was a voluntary identification request made for officer safety and CPIC checks and did not amount to arbitrary detention under s.9 or trigger s.10 rights; the trial judge’s findings contained no palpable and overriding error and the conviction is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction for breach of recognizance upheld