R. v. Lansdell (C.L.), (2009) 478 A.R. 186 (PC)

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 15, 2009
• Citations: (2009), 478 A.R. 186 (PC);2009 ABPC 355

R. v. Lansdell (C.L.) (2009), 478 A.R. 186 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. FE.087

Her Majesty the Queen v. Christina Lynn Lansdell (080535602P1; 2009 ABPC 355)

Indexed As: R. v. Lansdell (C.L.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

December 15, 2009.

Summary:

The accused was charged with obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his duty (count 1) and possession of stolen property not exceeding $5,000 (count 2). The accused asserted that her s. 7 Charter right to silence had been violated.

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported at 478 A.R. 174, found that the accused's s. 7 Charter right to silence had not been violated.

The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused guilty of count 1 and not guilty of count 2.

Criminal Law - Topic 434

Offences against the administration of law and justice - Disobedience and obstruction - Obstruction and resistance of peace officer - In execution of his duty - A police officer responded to a scene where a suspicious person was parked in a motor vehicle - Before the officer approached the vehicle, she learned that the vehicle was stolen - The officer found the accused in the driver's seat of the vehicle - The officer arrested the accused for possession of a stolen vehicle - The officer informed the accused of her Charter rights - The officer then asked her for her name - The accused did not respond but stared at her intently - The officer continued to entreat the accused for her name - The accused continued to stare at her silently - On a few occasions, the accused mouthed words silently - The officer was able to make out the words: "My name is C ...". The officer made repeated requests that the accused provide her name at the scene of the arrest and the police station; however, the stalemate continued - The accused testified that another police officer at the scene recognized her and referred to her by name - She decided that this was sufficient identification and refused to cooperate by providing her name - Upon cross-examination she was unable to provide a reason why she felt that the provision of her name would implicate her - She testified she could not remember if she mouthed words to the officer when the officer was questioning her - The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused guilty of obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his duty - The officer was trying to learn the identity of the accused - She was not aware that the accused might have been recognized by another officer - In any event, it was her duty and not of some unidentified officer to be satisfied of the identity of the accused on a reasonable basis - The accused choose to remain silent after being informed of that right - In these circumstances her actions amounted to a wilful obstruction of the police officer - She had ingested an illegal drug which might have affected her judgment somewhat; however, it was clear that she was fully aware of what she was doing - In any event, there was no basis to believe her state was akin to automatism such that she could not form the general intent necessary for wilful obstruction - See paragraphs 38 to 59.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 3 C.R.(4th) 302; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Beaver, [1957] S.C.R. 531, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Kowlyk, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 59; 86 N.R. 195; 55 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570; 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Gunn (P.B.) (1997), 193 A.R. 222; 135 W.A.C. 222; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 174 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 223 N.R. 224; 212 A.R. 234; 168 W.A.C. 234; 115 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Daviault (H.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63; 173 N.R. 1; 64 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Moore, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 195; 24 N.R. 181; 43 C.C.C.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Guthrie (1982), 39 A.R. 435 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Counsel:

Megan Rosborough, for the Crown;

Anita Myers, for the accused.

This case was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, by Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on December 15, 2009.