R. v. Feeney (M.), (1999) 7 B.C.T.C. 216 (SC)

• Judge: Oppal, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia
• Case Date: December 14, 1998
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1999), 7 B.C.T.C. 216 (SC)

Tweet

 

FREE EXCERPT

R. v. Feeney (M.) (1999), 7 B.C.T.C. 216 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.T.C. TBEd. AP.046

Her Majesty The Queen v. Michael Feeney

(CC980028)

Indexed As: R. v. Feeney (M.) (No. 2)

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Oppal, J.

March 22, 1999.

Summary:

The accused appealed his 1992 jury con­viction for second degree murder.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 54 B.C.A.C. 228; 88 W.A.C. 228, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a judg­ment reported 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial. The court held that the accused's residence was subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure and the evidence obtained was inad­missible. At the accused's second trial, the following matters were in issue on a voir dire: whether the DNA warrant provisions of the Criminal Code were unconstitutional; whether DNA evidence obtained subsequent to the first trial was admissible; whether evidence relating to fingerprints given by the accused to police in Calgary before the first trial were admissible; and whether a ciga­rette butt found by police in a cabin adjacent to the deceased's residence was admissible.

The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that (1) the DNA warrant provisions did not violated the accused's s. 7 Charter rights because although taking a DNA sample interfered with the accused's bodily integrity, the procedure complied with the principles of fundamental justice; (2) the DNA warrant in the present case was properly obtained and executed without violating the accused's rights; (3) the fingerprint evidence was admissible; and (4) the cigarette butt evi­dence was admissible.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - What constitutes unreason­able search and seizure - See paragraphs 18 to 48.

Civil Rights - Topic 1404.2

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Hair and bodily fluid samples (incl. sa­liva) - See paragraphs 18 to 48.

Civil Rights - Topic 1406

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Fingerprinting - See paragraphs 56 to 63.

Civil Rights - Topic 4385

Protection against self-incrimination - Incriminating conditions of the body - DNA warrant - See paragraphs 18 to 48.

Criminal Law - Topic 5585

Evidence and witnesses - Scientific and medical evidence - DNA evidence - See paragraphs 18 to 55.

Cases Noticed:

S.F. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1997), 47 O.T.C. 321; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 260 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.) (1998), 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

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. 29].

Baron et al. v. Minister of National Rev­enue (1993), 146 N.R. 270; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 510 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Williams (1992), 76 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

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; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 5 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Jones (S.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 229; 166 N.R. 321; 43 B.C.A.C. 241; 69 W.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Fitzpatrick (B.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 154; 188 N.R. 248; 65 B.C.A.C. 1; 106 W.A.C. 1; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 144; 32 C.R.R.(2d) 234; 43 C.R.(4th) 343, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161; 36 C.R.(4th) 1; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 43].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. J.R.T. and K.J.E.E., [1998] 2 W.W.R. 121 (Man. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Bisson (J.) et autres, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1097; 173 N.R. 237; 65 Q.A.C. 241; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 94, affing. (1994), 60 Q.A.C. 173; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 51].

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, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Connors (C.B.) (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 1; 166 W.A.C. 1; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 358 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Arp (1997), 92 B.C.A.C. 286; 150 W.A.C. 286; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 168 (C.A.), affd. (1998), 232 N.R. 317; 114 B.C.A.C. 1; 186 W.A.C. 1; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 296 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Borden (J.R.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 145; 171 N.R. 1; 134 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 383 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 404, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.) (1995), 181 N.R. 161; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 65].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487.05, sect. 487.06, sect. 487.09(1) [para. 21].

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

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 35th Parliament (June 25, 1995), generally [para. 46].

Fontana, James A., The Law of Search and Seizure in Canada (4th Ed. 1997), p. 94 [para. 24].

Counsel:

Dianne M. Wiedemann and Kathleen A. Murphy, for the Crown;

Charles Lugosi and R. Cornett, for the accused;

John Loo, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada.

This voir dire was heard between Novem­ber 23 and December 14, 1998, at Vancouver, B.C., before Oppal, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, whose following judgment was filed on March 22, 1999.