R. v. C.F., (2008) 326 Sask.R. 188 (PC)

• Judge: Daunt, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 23, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2008), 326 Sask.R. 188 (PC);2008 SKPC 150

R. v. C.F. (2008), 326 Sask.R. 188 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.004

Her Majesty the Queen v. C.F.PC

(Information Nos. Y334059, Y334056, Y334053, Y342325, Y342322, Y342324, Y342323; 2008 SKPC 150)

Indexed As: R. v. C.F.

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Youth Justice Court

Daunt, P.C.J.

October 23, 2008.

Summary:

The accused youth was arrested without warrant on October 14 . He first appeared in court on October 15 . He was in police custody and requested that the Crown show cause why he should be detained. He was remanded without his consent to October 17 . The Crown failed to produce him, and so jurisdiction over his person was lost. Rather than seek a warrant for his arrest, the police re-arrested him without warrant for the same offences. He was unlawfully detained and brought before a Justice of the Peace in the afternoon of October 17 . The Crown withdrew the original information and presented four new informations charging the same offences. Again, the accused requested that the Crown show cause why he should be detained. The Justice of the Peace remanded him without his consent to October 21 . The police officer flying the police plane refused to take him on the flight and so he was produced before the court on October 20 . Again he requested that the Crown show cause why he should be detained. The Youth Court Judge again did not call on the Crown to do this. Instead, he remanded him without his consent to October 23 .

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, ordered the accused's immediate release. Jurisdiction over the accused had been lost on October 17 and was not properly regained. The court refused to issue further process against the accused.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by ss. 110 and 111 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Criminal Law - Topic 2947

Jurisdiction - Loss or suspension of jurisdiction - Regaining of jurisdiction - The accused youth was arrested without warrant on October 14 - He first appeared in court on October 15 - He was in police custody and requested that the Crown show cause why he should be detained - He was remanded without his consent to October 17 - The Crown failed to produce him, and so jurisdiction over his person was lost - Rather than seek a warrant for his arrest, the police re-arrested him without warrant for the same offences - He was unlawfully detained and brought before a Justice of the Peace in the afternoon of October 17 - The Crown withdrew the original information and presented four new informations charging the same offences - Again, the accused requested that the Crown show cause why he should be detained - The Justice of the Peace remanded him without his consent to October 21 - The police officer flying the police plane refused to take him on the flight and so he was produced before the court on October 20 - Again he requested that the Crown show cause why he should be detained - The Youth Court Judge again did not call on the Crown to do this - Instead, he remanded him without his consent to October 23 - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, ordered the accused's immediate release - Jurisdiction over the accused had been lost on October 17 and was not properly regained - Jurisdiction was not regained by the police re-arresting the accused - Police, acting without judicial authorization, could not re-arrest an accused and regain jurisdiction over his person by unlawfully detaining him - Canadian law contained no power of re-arrest - The fresh arrest and laying of new informations did not turn back time - The re-arrest was unlawful - The proper procedure for the Crown to follow upon the loss of jurisdiction over the accused would have been to apply under s. 485 of the Criminal Code for either a warrant or summons to issue - See paragraphs 24 to 33.

Criminal Law - Topic 2947

Jurisdiction - Loss or suspension of jurisdiction - Regaining of jurisdiction - The accused youth was arrested without warrant on October 14 - He first appeared in court on October 15 - He was in police custody and requested that the Crown show cause why he should be detained - He was remanded without his consent to October 17 - The Crown failed to produce him, and so jurisdiction over his person was lost - Rather than seek a warrant for his arrest, the police re-arrested him without warrant for the same offences - He was unlawfully detained and brought before a Justice of the Peace in the afternoon of October 17 - The Crown withdrew the original information and presented four new informations charging the same offences - Again, the accused requested that the Crown show cause why he should be detained - The Justice of the Peace remanded him without his consent to October 21 - The police officer flying the police plane refused to take him on the flight and so he was produced before the court on October 20 - Again he requested that the Crown show cause why he should be detained - The Youth Court Judge again did not call on the Crown to do this - Instead, he remanded him without his consent to October 23 - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, ordered the accused's immediate release - Jurisdiction over the accused had been lost on October 17 and was not properly regained - Jurisdiction was not regained by his court appearance in front of the Justice of the Peace in the afternoon of October 17 - While the illegal process did not prevent the court from regaining jurisdiction, the court had to still be able to conclude that the accused's appearance before the court was voluntary - If an accused was unlawfully detained and brought to court, it was less likely that a court would find that his appearance before it was voluntary - None of the accused's court appearances were voluntary and at no time did he expressly or implicitly attorn to the jurisdiction of the court - In fact, he asked the court on three different occasions to release him - See paragraphs 34 to 52.

Criminal Law - Topic 3231

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Arrest - Warrants - General - The accused youth was arrested without warrant on October 14 - He first appeared in court on October 15 - He was in police custody and requested that the Crown show cause why he should be detained - He was remanded without his consent to October 17 - The Crown failed to produce him, and so jurisdiction over his person was lost - Rather than seek a warrant for his arrest, the police re-arrested him without warrant for the same offences - He was unlawfully detained and brought before a Justice of the Peace in the afternoon of October 17 - The Crown withdrew the original information and presented four new informations charging the same offences - Again, the accused requested that the Crown show cause why he should be detained - The Justice of the Peace remanded him without his consent to October 21 - The police officer flying the police plane refused to take him on the flight and so he was produced before the court on October 20 - Again he requested that the Crown show cause why he should be detained - The Youth Court Judge again did not call on the Crown to do this - Instead, he remanded him without his consent to October 23 - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, ordered the accused's immediate release - Jurisdiction over the accused had been lost on October 17 and was not properly regained - The court refused to issue further process (warrant or summons) against the accused - The accused was charged with non-violent offences (possession of stolen cigarettes and breach of probation) - It was not in the public interest to issue a warrant for the accused's arrest - It was not in the public interest to grant judicial endorsement of the appalling behaviour of the authorities in completely disregarding the accused's rights - He was held in custody for nine days unlawfully, without due process of law - The court's process had been manipulated unfairly with an utter disregard for the accused's procedural rights - The whole episode could only bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 56 to 62.

Criminal Law - Topic 8704

Young offenders - General principles - Jurisdiction - Courts - General - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 2947 ].

Cases Noticed:

Crampton v. Walton et al., [2005] 6 W.W.R. 414; 363 A.R. 216; 343 W.A.C. 216; 194 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 5].

McGrath v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, [2001] 2 A.C. 731, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 5].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Simpson (D.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 449; 178 N.R. 145; 127 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 171; 396 A.P.R. 171, refd to. [para. 28].

Tataryn v. R. (1990), 87 Sask.R. 225 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 37].

R. v. Hughes (1879), 4 Q.B.D. 614 (C.C.R.), dist. [para. 38].

R. v. Dahmer, [1983] 2 W.W.R. 407; 19 Sask.R. 290 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 38].

Lowe v. Azzopardi, [1976] 3 W.W.R. 377; 1976 CarswellSask 36 (C.A.), dist. [para. 43].

Groves, Re, [1972] 2 W.W.R. 399; 5 C.C.C.(2d) 90 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Horseferry, Rhode Magistrate's Court; Ex parte Bennett - see R. v. Bennett (A.P.).

R. v. Bennett (A.P.), [1994] 1 A.C. 42; 155 N.R. 372; 98 Cr. App. Rep. 114 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 7].

R. v. Krannenburg, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1053; 31 N.R. 206; 20 A.R. 504, 51 C.C.C.(2d) 205; 108 D.L.R.(3d) 333; 17 C.R.(3d) 357; [1980] 2 W.W.R. 651; J.E. 80-237, consd. [para. 45].

R. v. Khabra, [1978] 2 W.W.R. 655; 2 C.R.(3d) 187; 39 C.C.C.(2d) 475 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

Inverarity v. Saskatchewan and Fielding, P.C.J. (1984), 37 Sask.R. 32; 1984 CarswellSask 486 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Faulkner (D.H.) (2002), 216 Sask.R. 212; 24 M.V.R.(4th) 271; 2002 SKQB 131, refd to. [para. 63].

Poje v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1953] 1 S.C.R. 516, refd to. [para. 65].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 53 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Coughlan; Ex parte Evans - see Evans v. Pesce.

Evans v. Pesce, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 61 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [Appendix B].

R. v. Jones; Ex parte Cohen, [1970] 2 C.C.C. 374 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [Appendix B].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewaschuk, Eugene E., Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada, generally [para. 30]; p. 1-3 [para. 49].

Martin's Annual Criminal Code, para. 5 [para. 52].

Counsel:

Robert Mackenzie, for the Crown;

Susan Ryan, for the Defence.

This case was heard by Daunt, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Youth Justice Court, who delivered the following judgment on October 23, 2008.