Abstract
The trial judge in this case found that the violations of section 10(b) were sufficient to justify the exclusion of the evidence. On the other hand, the section 9 violation was not found to be serious. Indeed, it is not until the exclusion analysis that the decision explicitly acknowledges that there was an arbitrary detention at all: the focus of the discussion surrounding section 9 concerned the ways in which the detention was lawful. It is worth teasing out a bit, because it is a situation that arises frequently, and around which there is plenty of room for debate.
Original language | Canadian English |
---|---|
Journal | Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press |
Publication status | Published - Jan. 1 2021 |
Keywords
- Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- Arbitrary Detention or Imprisonment
- Arrest or Detention
- Right to Be Informed of Reasons
- Right to Counsel
- Right to Be Informed
- Unreasonable Search and Seizure
- Charter Remedies
- Exclusion of Evidence
- Section 9
- Section 10
- Section 8
- Section 24
Disciplines
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Law