R. v. MacIntyre

R. v. MacIntyre

The accused had standing to raise an s.8 claim but the grandmother possessed sufficient authority to validly consent to the search of the accused's bedroom; her consent was voluntary and informed, the items were lawfully gathered (plain view and consensual entry), and even if authority were lacking the evidence would not be excluded under s.24(2) as exclusion would bring the administration of justice into greater disrepute than admission.

Citation
2010 NSPC 30
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Jay Leon Scott MacIntyre aka John Leon MacIntyre
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal: Robbery and Related Weapons and Possession Offences / Decision on Charter Motion (voir Dire)
Outcome
Charter application dismissed; seized items admissible.
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter, Section 24(2) Charter, Third‑party Consent, Expectation of Privacy, Plain View Doctrine, Authority to Consent, Voluntariness of Consent, Exclusion of Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Search and Seizure Section 8 Charter Section 24(2) Charter Third‑party Consent Expectation of Privacy +4 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Jay Leon Scott MacIntyre aka John Leon MacIntyre

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal: Robbery and Related Weapons and Possession Offences / Decision on Charter Motion (voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the accused have standing via a reasonable expectation of privacy?
  2. 2 Was the accused's expectation of privacy sufficient to preclude grandmother's consent?
  3. 3 Did the grandmother have authority to consent to a search of the accused's bedroom?

Ratio Decidendi

The accused had standing to raise an s.8 claim but the grandmother possessed sufficient authority to validly consent to the search of the accused's bedroom; her consent was voluntary and informed, the items were lawfully gathered (plain view and consensual entry), and even if authority were lacking the evidence would not be excluded under s.24(2) as exclusion would bring the administration of justice into greater disrepute than admission.

Court Disposition

Charter application dismissed; seized items admissible.

Orders

  • Charter application pursuant to s.8 and s.24(2) dismissed
  • Seized items (pair of sneakers, necklace with pendant, Lakefield .22 calibre rifle) to be admitted as evidence