Case brief r v hufsky

J.S. and M.S. v. R.T.H

A warrantless entry is presumed to be unreasonable and in contravention of s. Lamer examined the phrase "in the public interest" and found that it was vague and imprecise, and so could not be used to frame a legal debate that could produce a structured rule. The ability of police to capture persons suspected of criminal activity and to preserve evidence necessary to convict them would be severely impeded.

The serious disregard for the accused's Charter rights suggests that the admission of the evidence would bring greater harm to the repute of the administration of justice than its exclusion. First, neither found a breach with respect to the taking of the evidence in question and this error in law likely influenced their alternative conclusion that the breaches, if they existed, were not serious.

The power of arrest is a crucial part of law enforcement. The suggestion that the police could have simply watched the trailer while waiting for a warrant, failed to recognize the distance and consequent time constraints for obtaining a warrant here. Exigent circumstances have always been held to constitute an exception to the notion that "a man's home is his castle".

They hold that the correct test for detention is whether a reasonable person, placed in the position of the accused, would conclude that their right to choose how to act has been removed by the police, given their conduct. Binnie, concurring in part, agrees with a holistic approach but does not like the focus this definition of detention puts on the perception of psychological pressure, even if filtered through the "reasonable person" standard.

Under the pre-Charter common law, a warrantless arrest following a forced entry into private premises is legal if: An exception occurs where there is a case of hot pursuit.

The combined effect of the facts in light of the particular context of this case must be taken into account. They also lay out a test for the admission of evidence obtained under a Charter breach, per s.

One indication of bad faith is that the Charter violation was undertaken without any lawful authority. The police lawfully entered the trailer to effect an arrest of the accused; they accordingly were entitled to search incident to arrest and to seize evidence.

The wife denied she could be found negligent. There is a greater urgency to investigate quickly in a case of violence. The trial judge demonstrated he was sensitive to the nature of the information received, and to the setting in which it was discovered.

Given the finding that the arrest was lawful, ss. The entry was authorized as an incident to a lawful arrest. No notice of purpose was given prior to entry. Under the circumstances, there is no evidence that admitting the gun would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

July 29, Brief Fact Summary. The police arrested him after seeing blood on his shirt. The reasons and conclusion were not to be taken as a disagreement with the principles of R. The husband conceded liability. [R.v.

R v Storrey

Feeney, [] 2 S.C.R. 13] The Facts - Just the Facts Do you think that the rights of Michael Feeney were violated in this Case cRIMINAL LAW The police conducted a. Michelle Vasconcelos R.


R v Storrey

Hufsky- Investigation R. v. Hufsky On January 14,The appellant (Werner Hufsky) was randomly spot-checked by a police officer while driving on the highway. Sections 8 & 9 were violated in this case.

Section 8 states "the right to be secure against unreasonable search. Facts: 17 year old girl went for job interview in the back of a winforlifestats.comd made sexual advances.

The accused stopped when asked. The girl never left and the accused always started back up again. At trial, the complainant testified that because she was scared, she.

r. v. hufsky, [] 1 S.C.R Werner E. J. Hufsky Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and The Attorney General of Canada Intervener INDEXED AS: R. v. HUFSKY File No.: R. v. Hufsky List of Similar Cases | Add Data to This Case | Edit Home |Add a new case | List of Issues Search for a Case by Name, Cite, Issue, Facts and Reasons.

Find A. CanLII Connects was created to make it faster and easier for legal professionals and the public to access high-quality legal commentary on Canadian court decisions.

Case brief r v hufsky
Rated 4/5 based on 16 review
R. v. Feeney [] - entered without warrant by Tammy Johnston on Prezi