L.M.L., Re, (1985) 66 A.R. 132 (ProvCt)
|Court:||Provincial Court (Alberta)|
|Case Date:||November 21, 1985|
|Citations:||(1985), 66 A.R. 132 (ProvCt)|
L.M.L., Re (1985), 66 A.R. 132 (ProvCt)
MLB headnote and full text
Indexed As: L.M.L., Re
Alberta Provincial Court
November 21, 1985.
A young girl was charged with possession of stolen property.
The Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, found the girl guilty on the basis of the doctrine of recent possession.
Civil Rights - Topic 1217
Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Unreasonable search and seizure - What constitutes - A police officer asked a young girl for identification, which she produced - The officer noticed another person's credit cards in her purse and asked to see them - The girl complied - A check of the cards failed to show them as stolen - The officer retained the cards for further investigation - The cards were discovered to have been stolen and the girl was charged with possession of stolen property - The Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, held that the police action did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 12 to 29.
Civil Rights - Topic 3604
Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes - A police officer asked a young girl standing in an arcade to produce her identification - She complied - The Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, held that the girl was not detained within the meaning of ss. 9 or 10 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraph 15.
Criminal Law - Topic 1881
Offences against property - Doctrine of recent possession - Application of - A young girl was found in possession of credit cards stolen six weeks earlier - The Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, held that the time period was not too long to make the doctrine of recent possession inapplicable, because the cards were "recently" stolen where they were not of a nature to pass rapidly from hand to hand - See paragraphs 7 to 19.
Ungaro v. The King,  2 D.L.R. 593, refd to. [para. 7].
R. v. Jones,  3 W.W.R. 313, refd to. [para. 9].
R. v. Wilson (1924), 35 B.C.R. 264, refd to. [para. 9].
R. v. Dedman (1985), 60 N.R. 34; 46 C.R.(3d) 195 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Chromiak (1979), 29 N.R. 441; 49 C.C.C.(2d) 257 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].
R. v. Therens et al.,  4 W.W. R. 286; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].
R. v. Good, 11 W.C.B. 278, agreed with [para. 17].
Rania et al. v. Burgess et al., 53 C.C.C.(2d) 384 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 16]; sect. 9, sect. 10 [para. 14].
C. Cunningham, for the Crown;
W.F. Collins, for the young person.
This charge was heard before Brownlee, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, who delivered the following judgment on November 21, 1985.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP