R. v. Goodkey (K.G.) et al., 2015 BCCA 64

• Judge: Chiasson, Frankel and Bennett, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: February 23, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2015 BCCA 64;(2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 231 (CA)

R. v. Goodkey (K.G.) (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 231 (CA);

    631 W.A.C. 231

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.002

Regina (respondent) v. Scott Berthold Krieger (appellant)

(CA041114)

Regina (respondent) v. Kirk Gordon Goodkey (appellant)

(CA041174; 2015 BCCA 64)

Indexed As: R. v. Goodkey (K.G.) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Chiasson, Frankel and Bennett, JJ.A.

February 23, 2015.

Summary:

Goodkey was charged with trafficking in cocaine after two packages of cocaine were found hidden in Krieger's truck. Krieger was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking. Krieger was under surveillance for suspected gun smuggling. Krieger met with an unidentified man (later identified as Goodkey). The man passed two boxes to Krieger. The police decided to arrest Krieger for "smuggling". A search found seven kilograms of cocaine hidden in a secret compartment. Two seized cell phones and a Blackberry were searched for the contact lists, incoming and outgoing calls, and text messages. Warrants were subsequently obtained to search Krieger's residence for weapons, etc. On the first voir dire, the trial judge ruled that the police lacked objectively reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Krieger. Accordingly, he was arbitrarily detained (Charter, s. 9) and subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8). On a second voir dire, the trial judge ruled that Krieger's s. 10(b) right to counsel was infringed by the police inadvertently questioning him before he could exercise his right to counsel. Notwithstanding that the Charter breaches were "serious and substantial", the trial judge ruled against excluding the cocaine evidence under s. 24(2).

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1429 found both accused guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Goodkey knew that he was delivering cocaine to Krieger and that Krieger knew that the packages he hid in his truck were cocaine. At the conclusion of the oral decision convicting Krieger and Goodkey, it was pointed out to the court that he found Goodkey guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking, but he had been charged with trafficking. Prior to sentencing, the court invited submissions and corrected the error.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1430, held that the court was not functus officio where the sentencing hearing had yet to take place. The court rejected Goodkey's submission that because the charge against him was not assessed on its merits, independent of the charge against Krieger, the error gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias which should be remedied by a mistrial or a reconsideration of the case against him. The court held that since the Crown had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Goodkey knowingly delivered cocaine to Krieger, it was appropriate to correct the error by entering a conviction for trafficking in cocaine. Both Goodkey and Krieger appealed their convictions. Krieger argued that the trial judge erred (1) in failing to find additional violations of his Charter rights under ss. 10(a) and (b); (2) in failing to find that the search of his residence violated s. 8; (3) in not excluding evidence under s. 24(2); and (4) in misapprehending the evidence in finding that he knew the contents of the two boxes delivered by Goodkey were cocaine. Goodkey argued that the trial judge erred (1) in coming to an unreasonable verdict that was unsupported by the evidence and (2) in failing to find a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The trial judge did not err in finding that Krieger's right to be informed of the reason for his arrest (s. 10(a)) was not infringed. Krieger's s. 10(b) right to counsel was not infringed when he was not immediately re-advised of his right to counsel when it was discovered that the hidden boxes contained cocaine rather than guns. The search of Krieger's residence constituted an unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8), because it was not properly issued. Notwithstanding serious breaches of the accused's Charter rights under ss. 8, 9 and 10(b), the court rejected Krieger's argument that the police systematically and deliberately disregarded his Charter rights. Applying the Grant factors, admission of the cocaine evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The court stated that "Reasonable and informed members of the public would understand and appreciate that the breaches here were not occasioned by disrespect or disregard for rights guaranteed by the Charter, but, rather, resulted from unintended human error".

Civil Rights - Topic 1604

Property - Search warrants - Validity of - See paragraphs 132 to 144.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - See paragraphs 128 to 130.

Civil Rights - Topic 3608

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Right to be informed of reasons for - See paragraphs 113 to 119.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - See paragraphs 120 to 127.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - See paragraphs 145 to 168.

Courts - Topic 691

Courts - Disqualification - Bias - Reasonable apprehension of bias - See paragraphs 169 to 172.

Criminal Law - Topic 3183

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Information - Sufficiency of form and content - See paragraphs 132 to 144.

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - See paragraphs 189 to 191.

Criminal Law - Topic 4957

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Misapprehension of evidence - See paragraphs 173 to 178, 192 to 195.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Harrison (B.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 494; 391 N.R. 147; 253 O.A.C. 358; 2009 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Evans (W.G.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Wong (W.K.) (1998), 106 B.C.A.C. 290; 172 W.A.C. 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Carpenter (J.D.) (2001), 147 B.C.A.C. 135; 241 W.A.C. 135; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 205 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [2001] 3 S.C.R. vi; 283 N.R. 394, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. S.E.V. (2009), 448 A.R. 351; 447 W.A.C. 351; 2009 ABCA 108, refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Suberu (M.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 460; 390 N.R. 303; 252 O.A.C. 340; 2009 SCC 33, dist. [para. 123].

R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281; 93 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 242 A.P.R. 35, dist. [para. 123].

R. v. Sinclair (T.T.), [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310; 406 N.R. 1; 293 B.C.A.C. 36; 496 W.A.C. 36; 2010 SCC 35, dist. [para. 123].

R. v. Vukelich (M.) (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 113; 128 W.A.C. 113; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1997] 2 S.C.R. xvi; 216 N.R. 239, refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. Lising (R.) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 343; 341 N.R. 147; 217 B.C.A.C. 65; 358 W.A.C. 65; 2005 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 130].

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, refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Vu (T.L.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 657; 451 N.R. 199; 345 B.C.A.C. 155; 589 W.A.C. 155; 2013 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Liu (Z.Q.) (2014), 354 B.C.A.C. 269; 605 W.A.C. 269; 2014 BCCA 166, refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Morelli - see R. v. U.P.M.

R. v. U.P.M., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253; 399 N.R. 200; 346 Sask.R. 1; 477 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 141].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Ballendine (K.D.) (2011), 304 B.C.A.C. 20; 513 W.A.C. 20; 271 C.C.C.(3d) 418; 2011 BCCA 221, refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Shepherd (C.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 527; 391 N.R. 132; 331 Sask.R. 306; 460 W.A.C. 306; 2009 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Kang-Brown (G.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456; 373 N.R. 67; 432 A.R. 1; 424 W.A.C. 1; 2008 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 143].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 145].

R. v. Côté (A.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 215; 421 N.R. 112; 2011 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 147].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208, refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Giles (D.F.) et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. H63; 2007 BCSC 1147, refd to. [para. 154].

R. v. Mann (R.S.), [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1247; 266 C.R.R.(2d) 49; 2012 BCSC 1247, affd. (2014), 357 B.C.A.C. 87; 611 W.A.C. 87; 310 C.C.C.(3d) 143; 2014 BCCA 231, leave to appeal denied [2014] S.C.C.A. No. 396, refd to. [para. 154].

R. v. Fearon (K.) (2014), 465 N.R. 205; 326 O.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 77, refd to. [para. 154].

R. v. Ahamad (F.), [2003] O.T.C. 971; 181 C.C.C.(3d) 56 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 181].

R. v. Greyeyes (E.R.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 825; 214 N.R. 43; 152 Sask.R. 294; 140 W.A.C. 294, refd to. [para. 184].

R. v. Wood (C.) (2007), 409 A.R. 377; 402 W.A.C. 377; 218 C.C.C.(3d) 386; 2007 ABCA 65, refd to. [para. 184].

Hodge's Case (1838), 2 Lewin 227; 168 E.R. 1136, refd to. [para. 186].

R. v. Mitchell, [1964] S.C.R. 471, refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Boyer, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 106 (B.C.C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1969] S.C.R. vii, refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Salekin, [1978] 5 W.W.R. 295 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Cooper, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860; 14 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 188].

R. v. Ngo (M.D.) (2009), 273 B.C.A.C. 174; 461 W.A.C. 174; 2009 BCCA 301, refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. To (W.H.) (1992), 16 B.C.A.C. 223; 28 W.A.C. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. G.L.J., [1997] B.C.A.C. Uned. 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Li (J.Y.) et al. (2009), 265 B.C.A.C. 110; 446 W.A.C. 110; 2009 BCCA 21, refd to. [para. 190].

Counsel:

N.L. Cobb and R. Mansoori-Dara, for the appellant, S.B. Krieger;

R.W. Hladun, Q.C., for the appellant, K.G. Goodkey;

W.P. Riley, Q.C., for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on September 29, 2014, at Vancouver, B.C., before Chiasson, Frankel and Bennett, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On February 23, 2015, Frankel, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.