|
''R v Grant'' is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10, and section 24(2) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the ''Charter''. The Court also created a new test for determining whether evidence obtained by a ''Charter'' breach should be excluded under section 24(2) of the ''Charter'', replacing the ''Collins'' test. As of the end of 2015, the decision has been cited at least 2,488 times by other Canadian courts. CanLII provides the (full text of these decisions ). ==Background== Three Toronto police officers were patrolling a school area known for a high crime rate for the purposes of monitoring the area and maintaining a safe student environment. Police observed Donnohue Grant in the area, acting suspiciously. A uniformed police officer went to speak to Mr. Grant, asked him what was going on, and asked him for his name and address. Mr. Grant handed over his identification and continued acting nervously. He went to adjust his jacket, prompting the officer to ask Mr. Grant to keep his hands in front of him. Worried about the safety of the first officer, the other two officers arrived, identified themselves, and obstructed Mr. Grant's ability to continue walking forward. A conversation took place with Mr. Grant, at which point he advised police he had marijuana and a firearm on him. Mr. Grant was arrested, and the marijuana and a loaded revolver were seized. Mr. Grant was never informed of his right to speak to a lawyer prior to being arrested. The trial judge found that Mr. Grant was not detained before his arrest, and that section 9 and section 10 of ''Charter'' were not infringed. The gun was admitted into evidence, and Mr. Grant was convicted of a number of firearm offences, including transferring a firearm without lawful authority (section 100(1) of the ''Criminal Code of Canada''). On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that a detention occurred when Mr. Grant began making incriminating statements, and since there were no reasonable grounds to detain Mr. Grant, section 9 of the ''Charter'' was infringed. Applying the ''Collins'' test, the related ''Stillman'' test, and other subsequent jurisprudence, the Court of Appeal found that admission of the firearm would not unduly undermine the fairness of the trial. As a result, they would not have excluded the firearm, and the convictions were not overturned. The Court of Appeal also noted that moving a firearm from one place to another met the definition of 'transfer'. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Grant」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|