R. v. D.S.

R. v. D.S.

The applicants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were detained before the grounds for arrest arose; the evidence did not establish the required elements of psychological detention (demand/direction, submission, reasonable belief of no choice), therefore s.9 and s.10(b) were not engaged and the Charter application was dismissed.

Citation
2007 NSPC 41
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: D.S.; Defendant: M.R.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Youth Criminal (youth Justice Court, Nova Scotia) / Charter Voir Dire S.24(2) Application Re Exclusion of Evidence
Outcome
Application dismissed; no Charter breach found
Legal Topics
Detention, S.10(b) Right to Counsel, S.9 Arbitrary Detention, Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Psychological Detention
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Youth Justice Detention S.10(b) Right to Counsel S.9 Arbitrary Detention Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Psychological Detention

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

D.S.

Defendant

M.R.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Youth Criminal (youth Justice Court, Nova Scotia) / Charter Voir Dire S.24(2) Application Re Exclusion of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were detained for purposes of s.9 and s.10(b) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether police conduct constituted psychological detention (demand/direction, submission, reasonable belief of no choice)
  3. 3 Whether evidence seized should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were detained before the grounds for arrest arose; the evidence did not establish the required elements of psychological detention (demand/direction, submission, reasonable belief of no choice), therefore s.9 and s.10(b) were not engaged and the Charter application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no Charter breach found

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No exclusion of evidence under s.24(2); arrests and seizures upheld