Charter Challenges In Criminal Law
1. Introduction to Charter Challenges in Criminal Law
A Charter challenge occurs when an accused argues that their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been violated by the state (usually police, prosecutors, or courts) during the criminal process. Common grounds include violations of:
Section 7 – Right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
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 – Rights in criminal proceedings.
Section 12 – Protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Section 24(2) – Remedies for Charter breaches (e.g., exclusion of evidence).
A successful Charter challenge can result in evidence being excluded, charges being stayed, or convictions being overturned.
2. Key Cases Illustrating Charter Challenges
Case 1: R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103
Issue: The burden of proof and the limitation clause under Section 1 of the Charter.
Facts: David Oakes was charged with possession of drugs for trafficking. A reverse onus provision in the Narcotic Control Act required him to prove he did not intend to traffic.
Decision: The Supreme Court of Canada established the Oakes test to determine if a law limiting a Charter right is justified under Section 1.
Significance: This case is fundamental for all Charter challenges. It provides a two-step framework:
The objective of the law must be pressing and substantial.
The means must be proportional (rational connection, minimal impairment, proportionality between effect and objective).
Case 2: R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265
Issue: Section 8 Charter rights – unreasonable search and seizure.
Facts: Police entered Collins’ home without a warrant and found evidence.
Decision: The Court held the search was unconstitutional, and evidence obtained in violation of Section 8 must generally be excluded unless justified.
Significance: Established principles for admissibility of evidence under Section 24(2). Evidence obtained in violation of the Charter can be excluded if admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Case 3: R. v. Singh, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 405
Issue: Right to counsel under Section 10(b).
Facts: Singh was arrested for drug-related offenses. He claimed police delayed informing him of his right to counsel.
Decision: The Court reinforced that immediate access to counsel is a constitutional right and that breaches can lead to exclusion of evidence.
Significance: Emphasizes the procedural safeguards in criminal law and the importance of timely legal advice.
Case 4: R. v. Grant, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353
Issue: Section 9 and Section 10(b) – arbitrary detention and right to counsel; exclusion of evidence.
Facts: Grant was stopped by police without reasonable suspicion and detained. He was questioned, and evidence was seized.
Decision: Supreme Court clarified the test for excluding evidence under Section 24(2):
Seriousness of the Charter breach.
Impact on the accused’s rights.
Society’s interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.
Significance: Modern framework for balancing state power and individual rights in criminal investigations.
Case 5: R. v. Feeney, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13
Issue: Warrantless entry and Section 8 violations.
Facts: Police entered Feeney’s home without a warrant and arrested him for murder.
Decision: The Court ruled that a warrantless entry into a dwelling violates Section 8, and evidence obtained as a result is inadmissible.
Significance: Strengthened protection against arbitrary police intrusion in private homes.
Case 6: R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30
Issue: Section 7 – Right to security of the person.
Facts: Morgentaler challenged criminal restrictions on abortion.
Decision: The Court held that criminalizing abortion violated a woman’s right to security of the person under Section 7.
Significance: Expanded Section 7 to include bodily autonomy and personal decision-making in criminal law contexts.
Case 7: R. v. Jordan, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631
Issue: Section 11(b) – right to a trial within a reasonable time.
Facts: Delays in criminal proceedings led Jordan to argue his Section 11(b) rights were violated.
Decision: Supreme Court established strict presumptive ceilings (18 months for provincial court trials, 30 months for superior court trials) for determining unreasonable delay.
Significance: Landmark case in procedural fairness in criminal law and timely administration of justice.
3. Summary of Key Principles
From these cases, we can identify recurring themes in Charter challenges in criminal law:
Evidence can be excluded if obtained in violation of the Charter (Collins, Feeney, Grant).
Procedural safeguards like the right to counsel and protection against arbitrary detention are critical (Singh, Grant).
Balancing test under Section 1 ensures laws limiting rights are justifiable (Oakes).
Privacy and bodily autonomy are protected under Section 7 and Section 8 (Morgentaler, Feeney).
Timeliness of justice is a Charter concern (Jordan).
RELATED Blog
comments