Law Society Logo 

eLaw - Criminal Law Update

October 2013 - No. 62
ISSN 1916-3916
In This Issue
Reasonable Suspicion Standard for Sniffer Dog Searches: SCC
Co-accused's Admissions Inadmissible Where Reliability Can't be Adequately Tested: SCC
Punitive Charitable Donation Order Not A Sentencing Option: MBCA
W.(D.) Analysis Contextual: MBCA
New Trial Ordered for Police Officers Convicted of Assault: MBCA
Joint Possession of Residence Not Sufficient to Infer Possession of Buried Gun: MBCA
Mandatory Minimum Sentence Violates Charter: MBQB
Other QB Decisions
Legislative Update
Recommended Reading
Fall CPD: LSM
Pitblado Lectures

Reasonable Suspicion Standard for Sniffer Dog Searches: SCC

 

Companion cases R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49 and R. v. MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 50 shed new light on the "reasonable suspicion" standard for warrantless searches using sniffer dogs. "Because they are minimally intrusive, narrowly targeted, and can be highly accurate, sniff searches may be conducted without prior judicial authorization," said the court, but only with "reasonable suspicion based on objective, ascertainable facts" of criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion must be assessed against the totality of the circumstances, including "the constellation of objectively discernible facts that are said to give the investigating officer reasonable cause to suspect that an individual is involved in the type of criminal activity under investigation. This inquiry must be fact-based, flexible, and grounded in common sense and practical, everyday experience." (para. 29) In both cases the court found no Charter breach, but the split decision in MacKenzie, where the minority found the police lacked objective grounds on which to justify deploying a sniffer dog to search the accused's vehicle, illustrates the difficulty in applying the standard in particular cases. The Lawyers Weekly article Onus on police to offer rationale when it comes to 'sniff searches' comments on the decisions.

Co-accused's Admissions Inadmissible Where Reliability Can't be Adequately Tested: SCC

 

In R. v. Youvarajah, 2013 SCC 41, the Supreme Court found that the prior written statement of a minor co-accused shooter implicating the adult accused as the orchestrator of the murder was inadmissible. The co-accused made the statement as part of his plea agreement, but later refused to adopt the statement at the accused's trial. "The administration of justice would not be enhanced in permitting admissions made by a co-accused in his own interest, as part of a plea bargain for a conviction of a lesser crime and favourable sentence, to be used against a co-accused, in circumstances where the reliability of the statements cannot be adequately tested," said the majority at para. 64. This post from The Court discusses the decision.

Punitive Charitable Donation Order Not A Sentencing Option: MBCA

 

"(T)he imposition of a condition in a probation order which forms part of a conditional discharge sentence requiring that an accused make a donation of $6,000 to each of two named charities is not a sentencing option available under the Code" according to the Court of Appeal in
R. v. Choi (J.W.), 2013 MBCA 75. The court set aside the conditional discharge/charitable donation sentence and substituted a conviction and fine of $15,000 on the charge of illegally employing foreign nationals. Although its finding that the sentence in this case was punitive made it unnecessary for the court to decide the larger issue of the appropriateness of charitable donations as a sentencing option, the court expressed its concerns with such sentences in

obiter and concluded:

 

If charitable donations are to be a sentencing option for judges, a legislative amendment should be considered and enacted to create an appropriate regime and thereby avoid the negative impact upon the administration of justice which may arise when judges make such orders on an ad hoc basis. (para.77)
W.(D.) Analysis Contextual: MBCA

 

In R. v. Menow, 2013 MBCA 72, the Court of Appeal rejected the accused's assertion that the trier of fact can consider only the evidence of the accused at the first stage of the W.(D.) analysis. The court found that

...(t)o assess the evidence of the accused in a vacuum ignores the fact that the whole purpose of the trial is to determine whether or not the accused is guilty of the offence for which he or she is charged. It is impossible for an accused's evidence to be considered without a factual or contextual backdrop for the charge itself. Furthermore, such a method of analysis would effectively prevent the court from considering evidence favourable to the accused when deciding whether or not to believe him or her. To ignore evidence favourable to an accused person in assessing his or her credibility is contrary to principles of fundamental justice. (para.23)

 

The court also disagreed with the assertion that, by finding the accused unbelievable at the first stage of the analysis, the trial judge conflated the first and second prongs of the W.(D.) test.

New Trial Ordered for Police Officers Convicted of Assault: MBCA

 

In R. v. Moyse, 2013 MBCA 71, the court allowed the fresh evidence appeal of two police officers convicted of assaulting the complainant in a parking lot (where there was camera surveillance) and again on route to the detachment office. A new trial was ordered to allow the police officers to present the testimony of a forensic pathologist to the effect that the complainant's injuries could have been caused by the struggle in the parking lot and by him banging his head against the police car shield, and that it was not the case that a further alleged assault was required to explain the injuries. On a side issue concerning joint representation, the court warned against such retainers, calling them "fraught with difficulties and dangers."

Joint Possession of Residence Not Sufficient to Infer Possession of Buried Gun: MBCA

 

The Court of Appeal quashed the possess weapons convictions in R. v. MacLeod (J.M.) et al., 2013 MBCA 48, because the guns in question were found buried in a dog run at the jointly occupied residence and there was no evidence pointing to either of the individual occupiers to infer that they had control of the dog or dog run and possession of the weapon.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence Violates Charter: MBQB

 

The mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm (s.95(2)(a)(i) CCC) violates s. 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter according to the court in R. v. Adamo, 2013 MBQB 225, because it precludes consideration of the reduced moral blameworthiness of a mentally disabled offender and imposes a grossly disproportionate sentence. The court severed the offending aspect of the legislation from the balance of the section and sentenced the accused (who had untreated mental health issues) to 6 months' imprisonment (served by time spent in pre-trial custody) and three years' supervised probation.

Other QB Decisions

 

R. v. Abdelhamid, 2013 MBQB 201 - a doctor convicted of assaulting a 15-year-old hospital patient was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment and accorded no credit for the time he spent in detention in Greece pending extradition.

 

R. v. Kille, 2013 MBQB 200 - the accused's social worker girlfriend who discovered and reported finding child pornography on the accused's computer was not a person in authority regarding statements made to her by the accused.

 

R. v. Bagherli, 2013 MBQB 189 - the court granted the conviction appeal and entered an acquittal on the charge of refusing to comply with a breathalyzer demand, finding a serious Charter breach in the fact that the appellant was required to indicate whether he would provide a breath sample after he asked to speak to a lawyer and was then arrested for the offence of refusal before that request was accommodated.

R. v. Dritsas, 2013 MBQB 186 - this lengthy decision reviews the sentencing principles applicable to serious cocaine and cannabis trafficking convictions resulting from the Project Sport Track investigation.

 

R. v. Rhodes, 2013 MBQB 166 - the accused is convicted on sexual assault charges following a retrial ordered by the Court of Appeal.

Legislative Update

 

Federal

 

The following justice-related bills were passed at the end of June:

 

Private member's Bill C-299, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (kidnapping of young person), received royal assent and came into force June 26, 2013. It amends the Criminal Code to prescribe a minimum punishment of five years when a kidnap victim is under sixteen years of age, unless the person who commits the offence is a parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of the victim.

 

Bill C-51 received royal assent June 26, 2013 and will come into force by order in council. As detailed in the legislative summary, it amends the Witness Protection Program Act to enhance witness protection, especially with respect to organized crime and terrorism.

 

Bill C-37 received royal assent June 19, 2013 and will come into force by order in council. It seeks to increase offenders' accountability to victims of crime by doubling victim surcharge amounts and making them mandatory for all those convicted of a criminal offence.

 

Bill S-209 received royal assent and came into force June 19, 2013. It amends the Criminal Code by expanding the list of permitted sports under the prize fighting provisions.

 

Bill S-9 received royal assent June 19, 2013 and will come into force by order in council. It introduces four new indictable offences concerning activities involving nuclear or radioactive material, devices, or facilities into Part II of the Criminal Code.

 

Bill C-309 came into force when it received royal assent on June 19, 2013. It amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to wear a mask or other disguise to conceal one's identity while taking part in a riot or an unlawful assembly.

 

Provincial

 

The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Speed Limits in School Zones) was proclaimed September 15, 2013, amending The Highway Control Act to allow local governments to set lower speed limits in school zones.

Provincial Court Notices

 

The Provincial Court recently issued a notice concerning detailed Practice Directives for Contested Applications in Provincial Court of Manitoba, effective November 4, 2013. The fundamental objective of the Practice Directives is to reflect the public interest in having in place procedures that ensure contested proceedings in the Provincial Court of Manitoba are dealt with justly and efficiently.

 

By notice dated July 2, 2013, the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court has suspended all previous Case Management Conference Protocols. Case management conferences are now held only on request of counsel or if required by the court

Recommended Reading

 

These publications may interest criminal lawyers:

 

Insanity and Automatism - this English Law Commission report examines how the criminal defences of insanity and automatism operate in practice and debates whether the law has the right test to distinguish between those who should be held criminally responsible for what they have done, and those who should not. Summaries of the report are also available on the Commission website.

 

The Stream, the Courthouse Libraries BC blog, often publishes posts on the details of new legislation. Two recent posts, The Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act and Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, deal with changes to the Criminal Code provisions concerning citizens' rights to protect their property and wiretapping.

 

Conditional Forgiveness and the Parole Board - this Slaw post discusses the revocability of criminal pardons (or "record suspensions" as they are now more accurately called).

 

Gladue Practices in Provinces and Territories - this is a Department of Justice Canada status

report on provincial and territorial policies and practices that reflect the principles set out in Gladue regarding: specialized courts for Aboriginal accused; training and awareness initiatives for judges, probation officers, and court workers; procedures for sentencing, bail and parole hearings when a case involves an Aboriginal offender; and community justice programs and resources for Aboriginal offenders.

 

SCC Declines to Distinguish Between Express and Implied Verbal Statements for the Purpose of Hearsay Analysis and Applies a Principled Approach to Admitting Drug Purchase Calls in R v Baldree - this post from The Court discusses the SCC decision in R. v. Baldree, in which the court found that evidence of a drug purchase call obtained when the police answered the accused's cell phone was inadmissible hearsay and should have been excluded.

Fall CPD: LSM

 

Register soon for these fall CPD programs:

 

Criminal Defence Advocacy Skills Workshop - Defending Sexual Assault Charges - the criminal defence advocacy workshop series continues with this all day program on defending sexual assault charges on October 26, 2013. Expert faculty from the court and defence bar will provide guidance on the issues arising in the three main categories of sexual offences: child sexual assault, historical allegations, and consent issues. Register soon as enrollment is limited. Participants should note that a new location will be used for this workshop, which will take place at the Law Courts.

 

Legal technology expert and lawyer Barron Henley is back with three new sessions:

 

Legal Technology & Practice Management: What's Coming and the Best of What's Out There Now, on October 23, 2013, will cover cloud computing, e-mail management, technology management and planning and malpractice avoidance strategies; and

 

Legal Drafting with Microsoft Word - Fundamental & Advanced Sessions, on October 24, 2013, will be delivered in two sessions dealing with the fundamentals and advanced techniques of drafting with Word. To save money register for both sessions.

 

Employee Engagement and Accountability: Build a High Performance Culture - this is the first program in the Leadership Skills series, designed to help lawyers improve their individual leadership style and enhance their performance as well as the performance of those around them. It takes place November 14, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Law Society classroom. Presenters Judy Mathieson and Denise Zaporzan will introduce practical skills to help participants align culture with strategy to create a high performance mindset in the workplace. Register for more than one session in the series and save money.

Pitblado Lectures

 

The 2013 Isaac Pitblado Lectures, titled Human Rights Challenges and Achievements, will take place November 22-23, 2013, at the Fort Garry Hotel. Presenters will cover a variety of topical human rights issues including equality jurisprudence, the future of human rights tribunals and commissions, and how international human rights law impacts Manitoba practice.

The Law Society of Manitoba provides this service solely for the benefit of and to support the competence of its members.  Members should exercise their professional judgment in using or adapting any content.