R. v. Connors (C.B.)

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Judge: Cumming, Donald and Newbury, JJ.A.
• Citation: (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 1 (CA)
• Date: 15 January 1998

R. v. Connors (C.B.) (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 1 (CA);

    166 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.029

Regina (appellant) v. Corbett Bradley Connors (respondent)

(CA020901)

Indexed As: R. v. Connors (C.B.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Cumming, Donald and Newbury, JJ.A.

January 15, 1998.

Summary:

The accused was charged with robbery and acquitted. The Crown appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 1406

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Fingerprinting - The only evidence con­nect­ing the accused to a July 1992 robbery were finger­prints left at the scene - These fingerprints were ulti­mately matched to the ac­cused's fingerprints (1) taken October 1993 while in custody and under arrest for impaired driving and (2) taken February 1994 on the robbery inves­tigation - The accused consented to pro­vide the October 1993 prints at the time of arrest, rather than return to do so on an appearance notice - The Brit­ish Columbia Court of Appeal held that the taking of the October 1993 prints did not infringe s. 7 or 8 of the Charter - Consequently, the Feb­ruary 1994 prints were not derivative evidence and were also admissible - If a Char­ter breach had occurred, the finger­print evidence was ad­missible under s. 24(2) of the Charter - See paragraphs 35 to 37, 90 to 94, 102, 110 to 114, 118.

Civil Rights - Topic 1406

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Fingerprinting - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the law permit­ting the taking and retention of fingerprints for indictable offences (Identi­fication of Criminals Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-1), did not infringe either s. 7 or 8 of the Charter - See paragraphs 95 to 98, 118.

Criminal Law - Topic 10.5

General principles - General and defini­tions - Charged, meaning of - The only evi­dence connecting the accused to a July 1992 robbery were fingerprints left at the scene - These fingerprints were ultimately matched to known fingerprints taken Oct­ober 1993 from the accused while in cus­tody and under arrest for impaired driving - The accused had been given the option of providing his fingerprints then or re­turn­ing to do so at a later date on a prom­ise to appear - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that at the time of giving the October 1993 fingerprints the accused was not "charged" with an indict­able offence within the mean­ing of s. 2(1) of the Identi­fication of Criminals Act - See paragraphs 108 to 110, 117.

Criminal Law - Topic 3902

Indictable offences - Indict­able offences defined - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that the Crown election respecting "hybrid" offences impacted procedurally on how and in what court the charge pro­ceeded, and on the maximum penalty that might be imposed, but the character of the offence remained unchanged - The court held that the offence remained an "indictable" offence - See paragraphs 69, 106, 118.

Police - Topic 3286

Powers - Identification of criminals - Indictable offence, meaning of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3902 ].

Police - Topic 3289

Powers - Identification of criminals - Fingerprinting - Cumming, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal dis­cussed whether police had a common law power to finger­print upon arrest - Cumm­ing, J.A., stated that the Identi­fication of Criminals Act (Can.) augmented the com­mon law police authority - New­bury, J.A., disagreed, stat­ing that the Act "occupied the field" and displaced any common law police power inso­far as summary convic­tion offences were concerned - Donald, J.A., found it nei­ther necessary nor appro­pri­ate in this case to rule on the existence of a common law police power to finger­print - See paragraphs 44 to 62, 103 to 105, 117.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Kalanj; R. v. Pion, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1594; 96 N.R. 191; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 459, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Gale (W.), [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. C30 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

United States of America v. Kelly (1932), 55 F.2d 67 (2nd Cir.), refd to. [para. 49].

Adair v. M'Garry, [1933] S.L.T. 482 (J.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Buckingham and Vickers (1943), 86 C.C.C. 76 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. N.A. (1977), 40 C.R.N.S. 144 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1978), 2 C.R.(3d) 55 (C.A.), overruled [para. 49].

Brown v. Baugh and British Columbia (Attorney General) (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 71 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1984] 1 S.C.R. 192; 53 N.R. 41, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Neilsen and Stolar (1984), 30 Man.R.(2d) 81; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 39 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1985] 1 S.C.R. xi; 31 Man.R.(2d) 240, refd to. [para. 49].

Callis v. Gunn, [1963] 3 All E.R. 677 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bé­dard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 46 C.R.R. 37, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Morrison (1987), 20 O.A.C. 230; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 437 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Oluwa (J.) (1996), 75 B.C.A.C. 284; 123 W.A.C. 284; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Garcia-Guiterrez (1991), 65 C.C.C.(3d) 15 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Hayward (1957), 118 C.C.C. 365 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 129, not appld. [para. 60].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Monteith (W.R.) (1991), 132 N.B.R.(2d0 203; 337 A.P.R. 203; 5 C.R.(4th) 241 (T.D.), not folld. [para. 63].

R. v. B. (1980), 8 C.C.C.(3d) 184 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Abarca v. R. (1980), 57 C.C.C.(2d) 410 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Ellerbeck (1981), 61 C.C.C.(2d) 573 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Tshernish (1990), 62 C.C.C.(3d) 382 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Gallagher (1981), 62 C.C.C.(2d) 3 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Toor, [1973] 4 W.W.R. 442; 11 C.C.C.(2d) 312 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 69].

Pattison (Jim) Industries Ltd. v. R., [1984] 2 F.C. 954 (F.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 80].

Retention of Seized Goods, and Barnable, Re (1986), 59 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 112; 178 A.P.R. 112; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 565 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Zaharia (1987), 18 O.A.C. 321; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Nikolovski (A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197; 204 N.R. 333; 96 O.A.C. 1: 111 C.C.C.(3d) 403, refd to. [para. 89].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 113].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 24]; sect. 8 [para. 1]; sect. 24(2) [para. 23].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 8(2) [para. 46]; sect. 501(3) [para. 29].

Identification of Criminals Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-1, sect. 2 [para. 26]; sect. 2(1) [para. 27]; sect. 2(2) [para. 58]; sect. 3 [para. 58].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 34(1) [para. 65].

Authors and Works Noticed:

British Columbia, Law Reform Commis­sion, Investigative Trusts, Working Paper No. 34 (1984), pp. 68, 69 [para. 79].

Counsel:

W.F. Ehrcke, for the Crown, appellant;

M.J. Hewitt, for the respon­dent;

S.D. Frankel, Q.C., for the intervenor, Canada (Attorney General).

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on December 9, 10 and 11, 1997, before Cumming, Donald and New­bury, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following judgment was delivered on January 15, 1998, including these opinions:

Cumming, J.A. - see para­graphs 1 to 100;

Donald, J.A. - see para­graphs 101 to 115;

Newbury, J.A. - see para­g­raphs 116 to 119.