Ontario criminal | Charter of Rights
ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS
Breach of rights was extremely serious and reflected pattern of systemic neglect
Accused charged with first degree murder. Accused arrested late at night on weekend following shooting. Police interviewed accused following afternoon rather than taking them to court. Officers testified that they believed weekend bail court would be closed. Officer in charge forgot to call justice of peace to attend station and remand accused. Accused applied to exclude statements on basis that they were not brought before justice within 24 hours. Crown conceded that accuseds’ s. 9 Charter right was violated but argued that statements should be admitted pursuant to s. 24(2). Application allowed and statement excluded. Breach of accuseds’ right was extremely serious and reflected pattern of systemic neglect of Charter rights. Police disregarded clear requirements of Criminal Code. Statements were not important part of Crown’s case. Admission of statements would bring administration of justice into disrepute.
R. v. Mendez (Jan. 22, 2014, Ont. S.C.J., M. Forestell J., File No. 12-30000346-0000) 111 W.C.B. (2d) 442.
Breach of rights was extremely serious and reflected pattern of systemic neglect
Accused charged with first degree murder. Accused arrested late at night on weekend following shooting. Police interviewed accused following afternoon rather than taking them to court. Officers testified that they believed weekend bail court would be closed. Officer in charge forgot to call justice of peace to attend station and remand accused. Accused applied to exclude statements on basis that they were not brought before justice within 24 hours. Crown conceded that accuseds’ s. 9 Charter right was violated but argued that statements should be admitted pursuant to s. 24(2). Application allowed and statement excluded. Breach of accuseds’ right was extremely serious and reflected pattern of systemic neglect of Charter rights. Police disregarded clear requirements of Criminal Code. Statements were not important part of Crown’s case. Admission of statements would bring administration of justice into disrepute.
R. v. Mendez (Jan. 22, 2014, Ont. S.C.J., M. Forestell J., File No. 12-30000346-0000) 111 W.C.B. (2d) 442.
