Judicial Interpretation Of Evidence Exclusion
Impact of Charter Rights on Evidence Admissibility
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) protects individuals from state action that violates fundamental rights. Certain Charter rights directly affect whether evidence can be admitted in criminal trials. Key sections include:
Section 8 – Protection against unreasonable search and seizure
Section 9 – Protection against arbitrary detention or imprisonment
Section 10 – Rights upon arrest or detention (e.g., right to counsel)
Section 11(d) – Right to be presumed innocent
Section 24(2) – Exclusion of evidence obtained in a manner that infringed Charter rights
The pivotal mechanism for controlling evidence is Section 24(2):
“Where, in proceedings under this Act or any other law, a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”
In short: evidence obtained in violation of Charter rights can be excluded if its inclusion would undermine the integrity of the justice system.
Key Cases
1. R. v. Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265
Context: Police conducted a search of Collins’ vehicle without proper authorization and discovered contraband.
Issue: Was the evidence admissible given a breach of Section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure)?
Decision: The Supreme Court introduced the “Collins test” for Section 24(2) analysis:
Consider the seriousness of the Charter breach
Consider the impact on the accused’s rights
Consider the effect of admitting the evidence on the reputation of the justice system
Impact: Established a structured framework for determining whether evidence should be excluded.
2. R. v. Stillman [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607
Context: Police took bodily samples from Stillman (dentist) without proper consent or warrant, used to implicate him in murder.
Issue: Violation of Section 8 (unreasonable search) and Section 7 (right to security of the person).
Decision: Evidence was excluded. The Court emphasized a distinction between:
Conscriptive evidence – obtained directly from the accused’s body or statements (higher chance of exclusion)
Non-conscriptive evidence – obtained from public sources or witnesses
Impact: Strengthened the principle that physical bodily evidence obtained without consent can be excluded if it infringes Charter rights.
3. R. v. Grant [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353
Context: Police stopped Grant arbitrarily without reasonable suspicion and obtained evidence after the stop.
Issue: Breach of Section 9 (arbitrary detention) and Section 8.
Decision: Supreme Court refined the 24(2) analysis:
Seriousness of Charter-infringing conduct
Impact on the accused’s rights
Society’s interest in adjudicating the case on its merits
Impact: Developed a flexible, modern approach to the exclusion of evidence, emphasizing proportionality.
4. R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103
Context: While primarily about the reverse-onus provision in drug law, it also addressed admissibility indirectly.
Principle: Established the Oakes test for determining if a Charter right can be limited under Section 1:
The law must have a pressing and substantial objective
The means must be proportionate, minimally impairing the right
Impact: Evidence exclusion may also be influenced by whether legislative restrictions on evidence were justified under Section 1. It underlines that Charter rights are not absolute but protected robustly.
5. R. v. Feeney [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13
Context: Police entered Feeney’s home without a warrant and discovered incriminating evidence.
Issue: Breach of Section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure).
Decision: Evidence was excluded. The Court stressed:
Homes are given the highest protection under Section 8
Warrantless entries are presumptively unconstitutional unless exigent circumstances exist
Impact: Reinforced strong privacy protections and clarified that evidence obtained from an unlawful home search is usually inadmissible.
6. R. v. Mann [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59
Context: Police conducted a street detention without arrest and found drugs.
Issue: Whether a brief investigatory detention without warrant or reasonable suspicion violated Section 9 & 8.
Decision: Evidence was admitted, but the Court laid out limits:
Police may detain for investigative purposes, but the detention must be brief and reasonable
Any search or frisk must be carefully limited
Impact: Balances public safety with Charter protections; evidence obtained through minor, justifiable breaches may still be admissible.
7. R. v. Singh [2007] 2 S.C.R. 584
Context: Singh’s confession was allegedly coerced during police interrogation.
Issue: Violation of Section 7 (right to life, liberty, security) and Section 10(b) (right to counsel).
Decision: Evidence was excluded, as the Court emphasized:
Confessions obtained in breach of Charter rights compromise the integrity of justice
Voluntariness and access to counsel are non-negotiable safeguards
Impact: Confirms that illegally obtained confessional evidence is likely to be excluded, protecting procedural fairness.
Summary of Key Principles
Section 8 violations (search & seizure): Evidence likely excluded if the breach is serious (e.g., Feeney, Stillman).
Section 9 & 10 violations (detention/arrest & right to counsel): Evidence may be excluded depending on impact (e.g., Grant, Mann).
Conscriptive vs non-conscriptive evidence: Bodily samples/statements are more strictly protected (Stillman).
Section 24(2) test: Exclusion balances seriousness of breach, impact on rights, and public interest (Collins, Grant).
Confessions and self-incriminating evidence: Must be voluntary and lawfully obtained (Singh).
RELATED Blog
comments