R. v. Huff, (1979) 17 A.R. 499 (CA)

• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: September 11, 1979
• Citations: (1979), 17 A.R. 499 (CA);1979 ABCA 234;1979 ALTASCAD 234;17 AR 499;50 CCC (2d) 324;[1979] AJ No 846 (QL);3 WCB 455

R. v. Huff (1979), 17 A.R. 499 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Huff

Indexed As: R. v. Huff

Alberta Court of Appeal

Laycraft and Morrow, JJ.A. and McClung, J. (ad hoc)

September 11, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge against the accused of escaping lawful custody contrary to s. 133(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34. A municipal police officer tried to stop the accused driver for a routine check in the municipality, but the accused fled with the officer in pursuit. Outside the municipality the accused committed the offence of dangerous driving, for which the police officer arrested him. When the police officer took the accused back to the municipality, the accused escaped. The accused was charged with escaping lawful custody. The trial judge acquitted the accused. The trial judge held that the police officer in arresting the accused for dangerous driving was acting as a private citizen, where the arrest and the offence occurred outside the police officer's municipality. Because a private citizen could only arrest for an indictable offence and dangerous driving was punishable by indictment or summary conviction, he held that a private citizen could not arrest for dangerous driving. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and convicted the accused of escaping lawful custody. The Court of Appeal affirmed that the police officer was acting as a private citizen in arresting the accused for dangerous driving, but that a private citizen could arrest for dangerous driving. The Court of Appeal held that the accused was in lawful custody and was guilty of escaping.

Criminal Law - Topic 3214

Arrest - Powers of private citizen - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 449(1)(a), provided that a private citizen may arrest without warrant a person committing an indictable offence - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that a private citizen could make an arrest for dangerous driving, notwithstanding that dangerous driving was punishable by indictment or on summary conviction - See paragraphs 17 to 19.

Criminal Law - Topic 3216

Arrest - Reasons or grounds given for arrest - Effect of - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that an arrest stated to be for certain offence cannot be validated by reliance on another offence for which the arrest might have been made, but was not - See paragraph 15.

Police - Topic 3072

Powers - Arrest - Arrest without warrant - Territorial jurisdiction - Municipal police officer - Police Act, S.A. 1973, c. 44, s. 31 - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that a municipal police officer could in his capacity as a police officer make an arrest outside the municipality for an offence occurring within the municipality - The Court of Appeal held that, where a municipal police officer makes an arrest outside the municipality for an offence which occurred outside the municipality, the police officer acts as a private citizen - See paragraphs 8 to 17.

Cases Noticed:

Dumbell v. Roberts, [1944] 1 All E.R. 326, appld. [para. 15].

Christie v. Leachinsky, [1947] A.C. 573, appld. [para. 16].

R. v. Slaten, 127 C.C.C. 81, appld. [para. 16].

R. v. Toor, 11 C.C.C.(2d) 312, folld. [para. 18].

R. v. Monkman (1975), 30 C.R.N.S. 338, folld. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 133(1)(a) [para. 1]; sect. 233(4) [para. 9]; sect. 449(1)(a) [para. 8].

Highway Traffic Act, S.A. 1975, c. 56, sect. 101, sect. 101.1 [para. 13].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 27(1)(a) [para. 17].

Motor Vehicle Administration Act, S.A. 1975, c. 68, sect. 91, sect. 98 [para. 13].

Police Act, S.A. 1973, c. 44, sect. 31 [para. 11].

Counsel:

B.S. Pannu, for the appellant.

This case was heard before LAYCRAFT, MORROW, JJ.A., and McCLUNG, J. (ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On September 11, 1979, LAYCRAFT, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal: