Pfp 200 Criminal And Civil Lawresearch Essay Assignment (20%)due December

The text explains the role of courts in addressing unjust laws that infringe on Charter-protected rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial. It also discusses the opposition towards a "hybrid" tribunal to try crimes of aggression, and the constitutional guarantees and limitations outlined in the Charter. The Court has ruled that limitations on rights must be justified and proportional to the objectives, as seen in previous cases like R. v. Delaronde and Keegstra. Furthermore, Section 33 of the Charter allows for justifiable limitations on rights. However, a case under this law also recognizes that crimes against humanity are not limited to war-related acts. Overall, law is defined as rules created and enforced by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior, and its definition is a matter of legal interpretation. In summary, the text discusses the role of courts in protecting Charter rights and the limitations and justifications for such limitations in the Canadian legal system.

The evidence seized during the investigation includes a baggie with 86.2 grams of powder cocaine found in Kit Rouge's possession, along with 8 oxycodone pills and $190.25 in cash. The facts surrounding how the evidence was seized involve Constable Snoop observing Rouge approaching the building, approaching Rouge, and advising them of their breach of bail conditions. Subsequently, Rouge was arrested, and a search was conducted, yielding the seized evidence.

In this scenario, the potential Charter rights that were breached include the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure (section 8) and the right to counsel (section 10(b)). The facts giving rise to these breaches involve the circumstances under which Rouge was approached, arrested, and searched without clear respect for their constitutional rights.

Considering the precedent decisions, R. v. Grant and R. v. Collins could be relevant cases. In R. v. Grant, the key issue was the admissibility of evidence obtained during a warrantless entry and subsequent search. In R. v. Collins, the court dealt with a police search of the accused when there were reasonable grounds to believe that the individual was attempting to hide or destroy evidence. These cases can be applied to argue both for and against the exclusion of the seized evidence in Kit Rouge's case.

Argument for exclusion: One argument for excluding the seized evidence is that the search conducted by Constable Snoop may be deemed unreasonable and in violation of section 8 of the Charter. The search was not conducted incident to a lawful arrest, and it could be argued that it exceeded the scope of what is reasonable in the circumstances, as seen in R. v. Collins. Therefore, the evidence obtained from this search should be excluded.

Argument against exclusion: On the other hand, an argument against the exclusion of the seized evidence could be based on the circumstances of immediate arrest and the need to ensure the safety and security of the officers and the public. This aligns with the decision in R. v. Grant, as the immediate need to prevent the destruction of evidence or to ensure the safety of officers and the public can justify a warrantless search and seizure.

In summary, based on the facts provided, there are strong grounds both for and against the exclusion of the seized evidence. The application of precedent decisions, particularly R. v. Grant and R. v. Collins, is crucial in determining the admissibility of the evidence in Kit Rouge's case under section 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Work fast from anywhere

Stay up to date and move work forward with BrutusAI on macOS/iOS/web & android. Download the app today.