R. v. Sanghera

2012 BCSC 2076 R. v. Sanghera IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Sanghera, 2012 BCSC 2076 Date: 20120109 Docket: 25797 Registry: Vancouver Regina v. Boby (aka Bobby) Barjinder Singh Sanghera Navdip Singh Sanghera Charanjit Singh Rangi Savdip Singh Sanghera and Jaspreet Singh Virk Before: The Honourable Madam Justice H. Holmes Oral Ruling re Standing to Seek Exclusion of Evidence Counsel for the Crown: Mark J. Sheardown Alisia Adams Counsel for the Accused, Boby Sanghera: Brian Coleman, Q.C. Jeremy H. Fung Counsel for the Accused, Navdip Sanghera: David N. Fai Counsel for the Accuseds, Charanjit Rangi and Savdip Sanghera: Colleen Elden Counsel for the Accused, Jaspreet Virk: A. Glouberman Place of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. January 9, 2012 [1] THE COURT: Four of the five accused charged on this indictment have given notice that they wish to seek the exclusion of evidence that they say was obtained in violation of their rights under sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The evidence was obtained during a search of the motor vehicle in which they had been travelling, and includes firearms found in a concealed area behind the dashboard. [2] The present issue concerns the standing of three of the accused, Navdip Sanghera, Charanjit Rangi, and Jaspreet Virk, to allege violations of their rights under s. 8 of the Charter. [3] The Crown agrees that all four of the accused who have given Charter notice, namely the above three accused and Boby Sanghera, should have standing to seek the exclusion of the evidence on the basis of alleged violations of sections 9 and 10 of the Charter. The Crown agrees also that Boby Sanghera should have standing to seek the exclusion of the evidence on the basis of alleged violations of s. 8. [4] However, the Crown submits that Navdip Sanghera, Charanjit Rangi, and Jaspreet Virk offer no basis, through evidence or submissions, for a conclusion that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location of the search. The Crown refers to the principles in R. v. Kutynec (1992), 7 O.R. (3d) 277 (C.A.), and R. v. Vukelich (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 113, and submits that there is no basis for the participation of those three accused in a voir dire inquiry concerning their s. 8 Charter rights. To allow their participation would not assist the resolution of issues properly at play. [5] My reasons now are brief because I have determined that the three applicants should have the standing they seek, and it is therefore likely that later in the proceedings I will need to consider in greater detail whether and to what extent they (or some of them) had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location of the search. [6] In short, it is the Crown's position in the trial that all four of these accused were in possession of the firearms seized in the motor vehicle search. The search took place on November 8, 2008. Counts in the indictment charge these four accused with possession of those firearms on that date. Unlike the situation in R. v. Khuc, 2000 BCCA 20, where Chief Justice McEachern discussed at length what might be viewed as competing or contradictory positions, the applicants do not at this stage advance a position contrary to that of the Crown. Nor do they advance what in Khuc was seen as a self-contradictory position, as between their position concerning the allegation of possession, and their position concerning their asserted expectation of privacy. [7] As the renter of the vehicle, Boby Sanghera has unchallenged standing to assert a violation of s. 8, and he will do so in the voir dire. There is no indication that cross-examination or submissions would be significantly extended, were the other three applicants to participate. Nothing about the search itself or any of the surrounding circumstances is suggested to be particular to any of the accused who were in the vehicle, in such a way as to raise issues particular to only one or more of them. [8] To the extent that the proceedings would be lengthened by the simple fact that more counsel would be involved in relation to the s. 8 issues, counsel advise that they do not expect participation by the three applicants to render the proceedings prolix. Counsel have already demonstrated a willingness to avoid overlap in their submissions on other issues. [9] The three applicants have unchallenged standing to assert violations of sections 9 and s. 10 of the Charter in relation to largely the same circumstances. These violations are said to have taken place as the accused were removed by the police from the vehicle. [10] I have considered the extensive submissions all counsel have made, and the authorities they have helpfully provided. Despite Ms. Adams' well-presented submissions for the Crown, I am not persuaded that the three applicants should be denied an opportunity to assert s. 8 violations in the voir dire. The voir dire will in any event consider alleged violations of the rights of those applicants under sections 9 and 10 in essentially the same set of factual circumstances, and will in any event consider Boby Sanghera's allegations of similar violations of rights under each of those provisions of the Charter, including s. 8. [11] In all the circumstances, the applicants will all have standing to assert violations of rights under s. 8 of the Charter. "H. Holmes, J." The Honourable Madam Justice H. Holmes