R. V. Grant
| R v Grant | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: April 24, 2008 Judgment: July 17, 2009 |
|
| Full case name | Donnohue Grant v. Her Majesty The Queen |
| Citations | 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353 |
| Docket No. | 31892 |
| Prior history | Judgment for the Crown in the Court of Appeal for Ontario. |
| Ruling | appeal allowed in part (acquittal allowed on one charge, convictions continued on remaining charges) |
| Holding | |
|
(1) A detention is defined as suspension of an individual's liberty by significant physical or psychological restraint, with various factors helping to determine whether there was a psychological detention. (5:2) (2) To determine if the admission of evidence obtained by a breach of an accused person's Charter rights would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, courts must consider the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct, the impact of the breach on the Charter-protected rights of the accused, and society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits. (6:1) (3) For the purpose of transferring a firearm without lawful authorization under section 100(1) of the Criminal Code, "transfer" requires some type of transaction. (7:0) |
|
| Court Membership | |
|
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices: Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron, Marshall Rothstein |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | McLachlin C.J. and Charron J. (paras. 1-149), joined by LeBel, Fish, Abella JJ. |
| Concurrence | Binnie J. (paras. 150-184) |
| Concurrence | Deschamps J. (paras. 185-230) |
| Rothstein J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
(1) A detention is defined as suspension of an individual's liberty by significant physical or psychological restraint, with various factors helping to determine whether there was a psychological detention. (5:2)
(2) To determine if the admission of evidence obtained by a breach of an accused person's Charter rights would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, courts must consider the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct, the impact of the breach on the Charter-protected rights of the accused, and society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits. (6:1)
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.
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.
...
Wikipedia