Charter Of Rights And Freedoms In Criminal Law

06 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Overview of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Criminal Law

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution Act, 1982. It guarantees fundamental rights to individuals, which are especially important in criminal law because they protect accused persons from state abuse and ensure fairness in the justice system.

Key Purposes in Criminal Law

Protect individuals from unreasonable search and seizure.

Ensure due process, including the right to counsel and fair trial.

Prevent cruel and unusual punishment.

Guarantee the right to presumption of innocence and equality before the law.

2. Key Charter Rights Relevant to Criminal Law

Right/Section	Description	Importance in Criminal Law
s. 7 – Life, Liberty, Security of Person	Right to life, liberty, and security, and cannot be deprived except in accordance with the law	Challenges to detention, bail, or criminal procedures
s. 8 – Protection against Unreasonable Search & Seizure	Law enforcement requires legal authorization for searches	Evidence obtained unlawfully may be excluded
s. 9 – Protection against Arbitrary Detention/Imprisonment	Individuals cannot be detained without legal reason	Prevents arbitrary arrests
s. 10 – Rights on Arrest or Detention	Right to be informed of reasons, retain counsel, and habeas corpus	Ensures accused knows rights and can consult a lawyer
s. 11 – Rights of Accused in Criminal Proceedings	Includes presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial, notice of charges	Fundamental procedural safeguards
s. 12 – Protection against Cruel and Unusual Punishment	Prohibits excessive sentences	Impacts sentencing law
s. 13 – Self-Incrimination Protection	Statements made in testimony cannot be used against self	Applies in trials and inquiries
s. 15 – Equality Rights	No discrimination based on race, sex, or other grounds	Ensures equal treatment under criminal law

3. Important Case Law

Case 1: R v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103

Facts: Oakes was found with a small amount of narcotics. The Narcotic Control Act placed reverse onus on the accused to prove lack of knowledge.

Issue: Did the reverse onus violate s. 11(d) – presumption of innocence?

Decision: Supreme Court held that reverse onus violated s. 11(d). Introduced the Oakes test for justifying Charter infringements under s. 1.

Significance: Landmark case establishing a framework to determine when rights can be limited under the Charter.

Case 2: R v. Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265

Facts: Police conducted a warrantless search and found stolen goods.

Issue: Was the search unreasonable under s. 8?

Decision: Court ruled the search was unreasonable. Evidence was excluded.

Significance: Clarified s. 8 protections against unreasonable search and seizure, leading to the modern exclusionary rule.

Case 3: R v. Stinchcombe [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326

Facts: Stinchcombe was charged with fraud and argued Crown failed to disclose all evidence.

Issue: Does the accused have the right to disclosure under s. 7 and s. 11?

Decision: Supreme Court held the Crown must disclose all relevant evidence, even if it harms the Crown’s case.

Significance: Established full disclosure principle as part of the right to a fair trial.

Case 4: R v. Singh [2007] 2 S.C.R. 857

Facts: Singh was detained at the airport and interrogated without counsel.

Issue: Did s. 10(b) – right to counsel – apply?

Decision: Court ruled the accused must have access to counsel “without delay”, and failure to do so violates Charter.

Significance: Reinforces procedural safeguards during arrest and detention.

Case 5: R v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30

Facts: Criminal law prohibited abortion unless approved by a hospital committee.

Issue: Did this violate s. 7 – right to security of the person?

Decision: Supreme Court struck down provisions as violating s. 7.

Significance: Demonstrates how s. 7 protects personal autonomy and liberty.

Case 6: R v. Latimer [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3

Facts: Latimer was convicted of murdering his severely disabled daughter.

Issue: Did mandatory minimum sentence violate s. 12 – protection against cruel and unusual punishment?

Decision: Court upheld the sentence but discussed proportionality in sentencing.

Significance: Shows s. 12 as a check on excessive or disproportionate punishment.

Case 7: R v. Grant [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353

Facts: Grant was detained by police and evidence was seized during an arguably illegal detention.

Issue: Should evidence be excluded under s. 24(2) due to s. 9 & s. 8 violations?

Decision: Court ruled the evidence was excluded, establishing a modern test balancing seriousness of breach, impact on rights, and society’s interest in adjudication on the merits.

Significance: Framework for Charter remedies in criminal cases.

4. Key Principles from Case Law

Presumption of Innocence (s. 11(d)) – reverse onus clauses must be justified (R v. Oakes).

Unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8) – evidence obtained unlawfully may be excluded (R v. Collins, R v. Grant).

Right to counsel (s. 10(b)) – must be informed and timely (R v. Singh).

Right to full disclosure – Crown must disclose all relevant evidence (R v. Stinchcombe).

Protection against cruel and unusual punishment (s. 12) – ensures proportionality (R v. Latimer).

Liberty and personal autonomy (s. 7) – applies beyond physical freedom, includes life decisions (R v. Morgentaler).

5. Summary Table

Charter Section	Right Protected	Case Example	Key Principle
s. 7	Life, liberty, security of person	R v. Morgentaler 1988	Protects personal autonomy, decisions affecting life
s. 8	Unreasonable search & seizure	R v. Collins 1987	Evidence unlawfully obtained may be excluded
s. 9	Arbitrary detention	R v. Grant 2009	Detention must be lawful and justified
s. 10(b)	Right to counsel	R v. Singh 2007	Accused must access lawyer without delay
s. 11(d)	Presumption of innocence	R v. Oakes 1986	Reverse onus violates fundamental principle
s. 12	Protection against cruel/unusual	R v. Latimer 2001	Sentences must be proportional
s. 24(2)	Remedies for rights violations	R v. Grant 2009	Evidence may be excluded balancing fairness & justice