R. v. Andrew

R. v. Andrew

Although the applicant raised an arguable Charter breach that could affect admissibility, the appellate judge found that on the material before the bail judge the Charter argument did not so weaken the Crown's apparent case that it displaced the strong concerns under the secondary ground (risk of re-offending and public safety); therefore continued detention was justified.

Citation
2009 BCSC 705
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Jeffrey Michael Andrew
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Judicial Interim Release/bail Review / Judicial Interim Release Review (application for Detention Review)
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; detention continued
Legal Topics
Judicial Interim Release, Search and Seizure, Section 8 Charter, Section 24(2) Charter, Secondary Ground for Detention (s.515(10)(b)), Apparent Strength of Prosecution (s.515(10)(c)), Identification/cpic Searches
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Procedure (bail) Judicial Interim Release Search and Seizure Section 8 Charter Section 24(2) Charter +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Jeffrey Michael Andrew

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Judicial Interim Release/bail Review / Judicial Interim Release Review (application for Detention Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provincial court judge erred by not assessing whether alleged Charter breaches (unlawful demand for identification and subsequent search) undermined the apparent strength of the Crown's case at a bail hearing
  2. 2 Whether a request for identification during a traffic stop constituted a seizure under s.8 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether evidence obtained after the alleged breach would likely be excluded under s.24(2) such that the accused would be unlikely to be convicted

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant raised an arguable Charter breach that could affect admissibility, the appellate judge found that on the material before the bail judge the Charter argument did not so weaken the Crown's apparent case that it displaced the strong concerns under the secondary ground (risk of re-offending and public safety); therefore continued detention was justified.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; detention continued

Orders

  • Applicant's detention is to continue; judicial interim release order of the provincial court judge maintained