R. v. Cronan (M.M.M.), 2014 SKPC 24

• Judge: Gordon, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 03, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2014 SKPC 24;(2014), 439 Sask.R. 228 (PC)

R. v. Cronan (M.M.M.) (2014), 439 Sask.R. 228 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.016

Her Majesty the Queen v. Melanie Mabel Marie Cronan

(Information No. 40691967; 2014 SKPC 24)

Indexed As: R. v. Cronan (M.M.M.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Gordon, P.C.J.

March 3, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged with wilfully obstructing a peace officer engaged in the lawful execution of his duty by physically blocking him with her body, contrary to s. 129(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty.

Civil Rights - Topic 3142

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Arrest or detention - Right to be informed of reasons for (Charter, s. 10(a)) - A police officer (Johns) was told by an investigating officer that there was an arrest warrant in effect for a 14 year old boy (Tyrell Cronan) - Johns was told to attend at Tyrell's residence and arrest him - At the residence, Johns informed Tyrell's mother (the accused Melanie Cronan) that he had an arrest warrant for Tyrell for possession of stolen property - Melanie became upset and angry - She demanded to see the arrest warrant but Johns did not have it - Melanie told the police to get out - Tyrell was standing just behind Melanie and to the side - Johns tried to get around Melanie to reach Tyrell - He warned Melanie that she could be arrested if she obstructed him - Melanie blocked Johns from going around her - She put her right arm out and told Tyrell to run - Melanie was charged with wilfully obstructing a peace officer engaged in the lawful execution of his duty - She argued that Johns' failure to have the original arrest warrant for Tyrell with him at the time he effected the arrest constituted a violation of s. 10(a) of the Charter - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that Melanie lacked standing to bring the Charter application because she was not the individual named in the warrant and it was not her Charter rights that were involved - Johns was in the lawful execution of his duty - It would be unwieldily and unworkable for police officers to have the original warrants with them in the course of their duties - See paragraphs 14 to 21.

Civil Rights - Topic 8583

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Who may raise Charter issues (incl. standing) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3142 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 434

Offences against the administration of law and justice - Obstruction and resistance of peace officer - In execution of his duties - A police officer (Johns) was told by an investigating officer that there was an arrest warrant in effect for a 14 year old boy (Tyrell Cronan) - Johns was told to attend at Tyrell's residence and arrest him - At the residence, Johns informed Tyrell's mother (the accused Melanie Cronan) that he had an arrest warrant for Tyrell for possession of stolen property - Melanie became upset and angry - She demanded to see the arrest warrant but Johns did not have it - Melanie told the police to get out - Tyrell was standing just behind Melanie and to the side - Johns tried to get around Melanie to reach Tyrell - He warned Melanie that she could be arrested if she obstructed him - Melanie blocked Johns from going around her - She put her right arm out and told Tyrell to run - Johns arrested Melanie and another officer arrested Tyrell - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found Melanie guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer engaged in the lawful execution of his duty - It was the purpose of the wilful obstruction, not its result, that went to the offence - The fact that Melanie did not prevent the officers from executing their duty was not a defence - See paragraphs 22 to 32.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gamracy, [1974] S.C.R. 640, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Wrightman, 2004 ONCJ 210, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Evans (W.G.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. D.W. (1991), 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. B.D. (2011), 273 O.A.C. 241; 2011 ONCA 51, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Vuradin (F.) (2013), 446 N.R. 53; 553 A.R. 1; 583 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Johnson (No. 1) (1985), 41 Sask.R. 205 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Tortolano et al. (1976), 28 C.C.C.(2d) 562 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. L.S.L. (1991), 89 Sask.R. 267 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Counsel:

Rob Parker, for the Crown;

Colleen Colvert, for the accused.

This matter was heard at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, before Gordon, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on March 3, 2014.