R. v. Storrey, (1990) 105 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 03, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 105 N.R. 81 (SCC);[1990] 1 SCR 241;1990 CanLII 125 (SCC);53 CCC (3d) 316;75 CR (3d) 1;105 NR 81;[1990] CarswellOnt 78;AZ-90111018;EYB 1990-67522;JE 90-372;[1990] SCJ No 12 (QL);[1990] ACS no 12;37 OAC 161;47 CRR 210;9 WCB (2d) 570

R. v. Storrey (1990), 105 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Ronald Percy Storrey (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(No. 19725)

Indexed As: R. v. Storrey

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.

February 15, 1990.

Summary:

On July 26, 1983, three Americans were returning to their homes in the State of Michigan, United States. As they approached the International Bridge in Windsor, Ontario, another vehicle suddenly cut them off and forced them to stop. The driver and passenger of this vehicle came over to the Americans' car. The driver punched one of the Americans, while the passenger slashed all three Americans with a knife. The assailants then fled before they could be apprehended. The victims gave descriptions of their attackers to the police and a police investigation ensued. On August 10, 1983, at 7:25 p.m., one Storrey was arrested. He was placed in a police line-up where he was identified by the victims as one of their attackers. He was however not formally charged until 1:44 p.m. on August 11, 1983, a little over 18 hours from the time of his arrest. Storrey was charged with aggravated assault. At trial he argued that his arrest and detention were contrary to s. 9 of the Charter (i.e., arbitrary detention). The trial judge, on a voir dire, ruled that the arrest was arbitrary and therefore in violation of s. 9, and the appropriate remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter was a stay of proceedings. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the stay of proceedings, and directed a new trial. The Court of Appeal held that there were reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and the detention was neither undue nor arbitrary. Storrey appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order directing a new trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Arbitrary detention - What constitutes - Three Americans were assaulted in Windsor, Ontario, when approaching the Canada- U.S. border - The police subsequently, without warrant, arrested one Storrey who met the description of the assailant given by the victims, drove a car similar to the assailant and had a past record of violence - The police intended to continue their investigation after the arrest and carried out their intention by putting Storrey in a police line-up where he was identified by the victims - Immediately thereafter, but some 18 hours after his arrest, he was charged with aggravated assault - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the arrest was not arbitrary and contrary to s. 9 of the Charter, notwithstanding that the police intended to continue their investigation after the arrest - See paragraphs 21 to 28.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Arbitrary detention - What constitutes - Three Americans were assaulted in Windsor, Ontario, when approaching the Canada- U.S. border - Approximately a week later, the police, without warrant, arrested one Storrey - He was identified in a police line-up - Immediately thereafter, but some 18 hours after the arrest, Storrey was charged with aggravated assault - The delay was due to the time needed to get the victims to the police station to identify Storrey in the line-up (i.e., delay due to police investigation) - If Storrey had not been identified he would have been released - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the time which elapsed between the arrest and the charge was not unreasonable and did not constitute arbitrary detention within the meaning of s. 9 of the Charter or s. 454(1) of the Criminal Code (1970) - See paragraphs 29 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 3211

Compelling appearance - Detention and release - Arrest - General - [See second Police - Topic 3103 below].

Police - Topic 3061

Powers - Arrest - General - [See second Police - Topic 3103 below].

Police - Topic 3063

Powers - Arrest - Without warrant - Reasonable and probable grounds - The Criminal Code (1970), s. 450(1), provided that a peace officer may arrest without a warrant a person who has committed an indictable offence, or who, on reasonable and probable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence - The Supreme Court of Canada held that for an officer to arrest without a warrant under s. 450(1), the officer must subjectively have reasonable and probable grounds on which to base the arrest and those grounds must, in addition, be justifiable from an objective point of view - The police need not show more than reasonable and probable grounds - They are not required to establish a prima facie case before making the arrest - See paragraph 17.

Police - Topic 3063

Powers - Arrest - Without warrant - Reasonable and probable grounds - Three Americans were assaulted in Windsor, Ontario, when approaching the Canada-U.S. border - The victims told police the type of car the assailant drove and picked out a photograph which looked remarkably like one of the assailants - The police, without warrant, arrested one Storrey who looked like the picture, had been stopped by police on several occasions driving a similar car and had a past record of violence - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there were reasonable and probable grounds for the police to arrest Storrey without warrant under s. 450(1) of the Criminal Code (1970) - See paragraphs 13 to 20.

Police - Topic 3103

Powers - Investigation - Powers respecting persons under arrest - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3603 above].

Police - Topic 3103

Powers - Investigation - Powers respecting persons under arrest - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that there is no established principle providing that whenever a lawful arrest is made, in circumstances where the police intend to do further investigation, the arrest should then be considered to have been made for an improper purpose - "On the contrary, it has long been the rule in Canada and the United Kingdom that the police can continue their investigation subsequent to an arrest" - See paragraphs 24, 25 - "An arrest which is lawfully made does not become unlawful simply because the police intend to continue their investigation after the arrest" - See paragraph 28.

Cases Noticed:

Dumbell v. Roberts, [1944] 1 All E.R. 326 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Brown (1987), 76 N.S.R.(2d) 64; 189 A.P.R. 64; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Liversidge v. Anderson, [1942] A.C. 206 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny (1985), 8 O.A.C. 31; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201, dist. [paras. 21, 22, 23].

R. v. Dedman (1981), 32 O.R.(2d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Dallison v. Caffery, [1964] 3 W.L.R. 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Holgate-Mohammed v. Duke, [1984] A.C. 437, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Koszulap (1974), 27 C.R.N.S. 226, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Precourt (1976), 39 C.C.C.(2d) 311 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 33, 34].

Ralph v. Pepersack (1964), 335 F.2d 128, refd to. [para. 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 9 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 24(1) [para. 11].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 450(1) [paras. 9, 13, 14]; sect. 450(2) [paras. 9, 10, 11]; sect. 454(1) [paras. 13, 29, 30, 31, 40]; sect. 483 [para. 9].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 495(1) [paras. 9, 13]; sect. 503(1) [para. 13]; sect. 553 [para. 9].

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (U.S.), rule 5 [paras. 37, 38, 39].

Counsel:

Andrew Z. Kerekes, for the appellant;

Dana L. Venner, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Kerekes, Collins, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 3, 1989, before Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was rendered in both official languages by Cory, J., on February 15, 1990.