R. v. Collins

R. v. Collins

Majority held that appellant established an unreasonable, s.8-violative warrantless search on the record and that, applying s.24(2) and the reasonable person test (dispassionate and fully apprised), admission of the heroin would bring the administration of justice into disrepute; appeal allowed and a new trial ordered because Crown failed to prove reasonable grounds due to an unfounded hearsay objection at trial but officer could at a new trial potentially justify the search.

Citation
[1987] 1 SCR 265
Parties
Appellant: Ruby Collins; Respondent: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 April 1987
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered (McIntyre J. dissenting)
Legal Topics
Charter S.8 Search and Seizure, Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Narcotic Control Act S.10(1) Reasonable Grounds, Bringing Administration of Justice Into Disrepute, Burden and Standard of Proof for Warrantless Searches
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Evidence Criminal Law Charter S.8 Search and Seizure Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Narcotic Control Act S.10(1) Reasonable Grounds Bringing Administration of Justice Into Disrepute Burden and Standard of Proof for Warrantless Searches

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

Parties

Ruby Collins

Appellant

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the search unreasonable under s.8 of the Charter?
  2. 2 Did the Crown establish reasonable and probable grounds under Narcotic Control Act s.10(1)?
  3. 3 Should the heroin evidence be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter as bringing the administration of justice into disrepute?

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that appellant established an unreasonable, s.8-violative warrantless search on the record and that, applying s.24(2) and the reasonable person test (dispassionate and fully apprised), admission of the heroin would bring the administration of justice into disrepute; appeal allowed and a new trial ordered because Crown failed to prove reasonable grounds due to an unfounded hearsay objection at trial but officer could at a new trial potentially justify the search.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered (McIntyre J. dissenting)

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • New trial ordered