R. v. Collins
Encyclopedia
R. v. Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
on section 8
and was a leading case on section 24(2)
of the Constitution Act, 1982
which allowed for the exclusion of evidence upon infringing the Charter
. The Collins test for section 24(2) was developed for determining if the administration of justice was brought into disrepute by the inclusion of the evidence. The test was later replaced in R. v. Grant
.
Drug Squad in Vancouver had Ruby Collins under surveillance as part of an investigation into a "heroin problem". One of the officers approached her in a local pub, told her that he was a police officer, and then grabbed her by the throat and in the process dragged her down to the floor in what is known as a "throat hold" used to prevent suspects from swallowing drug filled balloons. The officer then told her to let go of a heroin filled balloon she had in her hand, and she did so. The officer then arrested Collins for drug possession.
At the voir dire
, Crown counsel sought to justify the search under what was then section 10 of the Narcotics Control Act (NCA). The search power in s. 10 required the officer to "reasonably believe" there is an illegal narcotic in a place. In order to establish the officer's reasonable belief, Crown counsel asked the officer when he began to suspect that Ruby Collins was in possession of heroin. The officer began to respond: "We were advised..." but defence counsel objected with an interruption, arguing that whatever the officer had been told by a third party was hearsay. (In fact, as Lamer J. notes, the fact was not hearsay and the trial judge should have been overruled.) In this way, the grounds for the officer's belief that Ruby Collins possessed heroin was never established at trial, and the trial judge concluded that, since the requirements of s. 10 were not met, the search was illegal.
that protects individuals against unreasonable search and seizure. A search can only be reasonable, Lamer held, if it met three requirements:
In this way, the Supreme Court disagreed with some lower courts, and some American jurisprudence, in holding that an illegal search was automatically unreasonable.
Lamer J. concluded that, since the Crown had not established that the search had met the requirements of section 10 of the Narcotics Control Act, it was not authorized by law. Therefore, it failed the first prong of the three-part test and was an unreasonable search under s. 8 of the Charter.
Lamer examined the meaning of "disrepute". He rejected the previous use of the term established in Rothman v. The Queen [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640 which suggested evidence should be excluded on grounds that it would "shock" the community. Instead, he stated, the standard should be lower. He does not give a clear definition of "disrepute" but instead gives a set of three weighted factors to determine if there has been disrepute. The factors consist of:
The method of analyzing the first set of factors was presented in R. v. Stillman
which produced the "Stillman test". This analysis includes looking at the nature of the evidence and whether there would have been any alternative means of obtaining the evidence.
The second point of analysis examines whether admission of the evidence would implicitly condone the illegal practices of the police. The courts focus on the manner in which the evidence was obtained. This includes factors such as whether it was done in good faith. Namely, was it inadvertent, merely technical, or whether it was deliberate or wilful. As well, the courts can consider whether there was any exigent circumstances, urgency, or necessity in the act.
The third set of factors look at the effect of the exclusion on the repute of the administration of justice. The effect of the admission must be weighed against its exclusion. The courts compare the seriousness of the breach and the fairness of the trial against the importance of the evidence in the Crown's case and the overall.
.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
on section 8
Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This Charter right provides Canadians with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state...
and was a leading case on section 24(2)
Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated...
of the Constitution Act, 1982
Constitution Act, 1982
The Constitution Act, 1982 is a part of the Constitution of Canada. The Act was introduced as part of Canada's process of "patriating" the constitution, introducing several amendments to the British North America Act, 1867, and changing the latter's name in Canada to the Constitution Act, 1867...
which allowed for the exclusion of evidence upon infringing the Charter
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
. The Collins test for section 24(2) was developed for determining if the administration of justice was brought into disrepute by the inclusion of the evidence. The test was later replaced in R. v. Grant
R. v. Grant
R. v. Grant is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10, and section 24 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...
.
Background
The Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceRoyal Canadian Mounted Police
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police , literally ‘Royal Gendarmerie of Canada’; colloquially known as The Mounties, and internally as ‘The Force’) is the national police force of Canada, and one of the most recognized of its kind in the world. It is unique in the world as a national, federal,...
Drug Squad in Vancouver had Ruby Collins under surveillance as part of an investigation into a "heroin problem". One of the officers approached her in a local pub, told her that he was a police officer, and then grabbed her by the throat and in the process dragged her down to the floor in what is known as a "throat hold" used to prevent suspects from swallowing drug filled balloons. The officer then told her to let go of a heroin filled balloon she had in her hand, and she did so. The officer then arrested Collins for drug possession.
At the voir dire
Voir dire
Voir dire is a phrase in law which comes from the Anglo-Norman language. In origin it refers to an oath to tell the truth , i.e., to say what is true, what is objectively accurate or subjectively honest, or both....
, Crown counsel sought to justify the search under what was then section 10 of the Narcotics Control Act (NCA). The search power in s. 10 required the officer to "reasonably believe" there is an illegal narcotic in a place. In order to establish the officer's reasonable belief, Crown counsel asked the officer when he began to suspect that Ruby Collins was in possession of heroin. The officer began to respond: "We were advised..." but defence counsel objected with an interruption, arguing that whatever the officer had been told by a third party was hearsay. (In fact, as Lamer J. notes, the fact was not hearsay and the trial judge should have been overruled.) In this way, the grounds for the officer's belief that Ruby Collins possessed heroin was never established at trial, and the trial judge concluded that, since the requirements of s. 10 were not met, the search was illegal.
Section 8
Lamer began by examining if the search violated Collins rights under section 8Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This Charter right provides Canadians with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state...
that protects individuals against unreasonable search and seizure. A search can only be reasonable, Lamer held, if it met three requirements:
- the search must be authorized by law;
- the law itself must be reasonable;
- the manner in which the search is carried out must be reasonable.
In this way, the Supreme Court disagreed with some lower courts, and some American jurisprudence, in holding that an illegal search was automatically unreasonable.
Lamer J. concluded that, since the Crown had not established that the search had met the requirements of section 10 of the Narcotics Control Act, it was not authorized by law. Therefore, it failed the first prong of the three-part test and was an unreasonable search under s. 8 of the Charter.
Section 24(2)
Once a violation was found, the case turned on the meaning of section 24(2) which said that once a violation of an individuals charter rights have been found, the evidence obtained through the violation must be excluded if its inclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.Lamer examined the meaning of "disrepute". He rejected the previous use of the term established in Rothman v. The Queen [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640 which suggested evidence should be excluded on grounds that it would "shock" the community. Instead, he stated, the standard should be lower. He does not give a clear definition of "disrepute" but instead gives a set of three weighted factors to determine if there has been disrepute. The factors consist of:
- factors affecting the fairness of the trial,
- factors relevant to the seriousness of the violation; and
- factors relevant to the effect of excluding the evidence.
The method of analyzing the first set of factors was presented in R. v. Stillman
R. v. Stillman
R. v. Stillman [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607, was a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 24 of the Constitution of Canada which allowed for the exclusion of evidence that is obtained in a manner that infringes the Charter...
which produced the "Stillman test". This analysis includes looking at the nature of the evidence and whether there would have been any alternative means of obtaining the evidence.
The second point of analysis examines whether admission of the evidence would implicitly condone the illegal practices of the police. The courts focus on the manner in which the evidence was obtained. This includes factors such as whether it was done in good faith. Namely, was it inadvertent, merely technical, or whether it was deliberate or wilful. As well, the courts can consider whether there was any exigent circumstances, urgency, or necessity in the act.
The third set of factors look at the effect of the exclusion on the repute of the administration of justice. The effect of the admission must be weighed against its exclusion. The courts compare the seriousness of the breach and the fairness of the trial against the importance of the evidence in the Crown's case and the overall.
- The question under s. 24(2) is whether the system's repute will be better served by the admission or the exclusion of the evidence, and it is thus necessary to consider any disrepute that may result from the exclusion of the evidence. In my view, the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute by the exclusion of evidence essential to substantiate the charge, and thus the acquittal of the accused, because of a trivial breach of the Charter.
Subsequent Decisions
In 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada found that courts were having trouble applying the Collins test in s. 24(2) analysis, and replaced it with a completely new test in R. v. GrantR. v. Grant
R. v. Grant is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10, and section 24 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...
.