R. v. T.K.E., (2006) 316 N.B.R.(2d) 234 (TD)

• Judge: Glennie, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: April 10, 2006
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2006), 316 N.B.R.(2d) 234 (TD);2007 NBQB 204

R. v. T.K.E. (2006), 316 N.B.R.(2d) 234 (TD);

    316 R.N.-B.(2e) 234; 816 A.P.R. 234

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

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

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.038

Renvoi temp.: [2007] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.038

Her Majesty the Queen v. T.K.E.

(S/CR/12/03; 2007 NBQB 204; 2007 NBBR 204)

Indexed As: R. v. T.K.E.

Répertorié: R. v. T.K.E.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Saint John

Glennie, J.

September 6, 2006.

Summary:

Résumé:

The accused, a young offender, was charged with manslaughter. He applied for the exclusion from the evidence at his trial of an intercepted conversation he had with his mother and stepfather at a meeting at the Miramichi Youth Centre where he had been held in closed custody as a result of unrelated offences.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the application. While the court set aside the authorization to intercept as violating the accused's rights under s. 8 of the Charter to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - What constitutes unreasonable search and seizure - The accused was a young offender held at a youth centre on charges unrelated to the manslaughter charge now against him - A conversation at the youth centre between the accused, his mother and his stepfather was intercepted after a judge issued an authorization to intercept on the basis of an affidavit that failed to disclose police information that the accused might make a statement in relation to the manslaughter charge - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that the interception violated the accused's right under s. 8 of the Charter to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure - Without disclosure of the information about the accused possibly giving a statement to the police, the issuing judge could not be satisfied that this other investigative technique had failed or had little likelihood of success - The court set aside the authorization - See paragraphs 73 to 104.

Civil Rights - Topic 1444

Security of the person - Right to privacy - Expectation of privacy - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The accused was a young offender held at a youth centre on charges unrelated to the manslaughter charge now against him - A conversation at the youth centre between the accused, his mother and his stepfather was intercepted after a judge issued an authorization to intercept on the basis of an affidavit that failed to disclose police information that the accused might make a statement in relation to the manslaughter charge - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that the interception violated the accused's right under s. 8 of the Charter to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure - However, the court admitted the conversation where its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute - The evidence was non-conscriptive - There was a reduced expectation of privacy where the accused suspected that the meeting room was bugged - The violation was conducted without the use of any force and was not part of a pattern of police misconduct - See paragraphs 105 to 145.

Criminal Law - Topic 5274.4

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications (incl video surveillance) - Application for - Investigative necessity - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5274.4

Preuve et témoins - Interception de communications privées (y compris par surveillance vidéo) - Demande d'interception de communications privées - Nécessité pour l'enquête - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5274.4 ].

Droits et libertés - Cote 1217

Sécurité de la personne - Fouille ou perquisition légales ou raisonnables - Éléments constitutifs d'une fouille, d'une perquisition et d'une saisie abusives - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Droits et libertés - Cote 1444

Sécurité de la personne - Droit au respect de la vie privée - Attente en matière de respect de la vie privée - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 1444 ].

Droits et libertés - Cote 8368

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Négation de droits - Mesures de redressement - Exclusion de la preuve - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al. (2000), 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 2000 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Rosebush (F.E.) et al. (1992), 131 A.R. 282; 25 W.A.C. 282; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 241; 1992 CarswellAlta 792 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1993] 2 S.C.R. x; 157 N.R. 240; 145 A.R. 240; 55 W.A.C. 240, refd to. [para. 12].

United States v. Brone (1986), 792 F.2d 1504, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Shalala (R.H.) (2000), 224 N.B.R.(2d) 118; 574 A.P.R. 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Lising (R.) et al. (2004), 193 B.C.A.C. 42; 316 W.A.C. 42 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Pires (F.B.) - see R. v. Lising (R.) et al.

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 75].

R. v. Duarte - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.

R. v. Doiron (E.) (2004), 274 N.B.R.(2d) 120; 718 A.P.R. 120; 2004 CarswellNB 256 (T.D.), affd. [2005] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 180; 2005 CarswellNB 691 (C.A.), consd. [para. 81].

R. v. Schreinert (S.) (2002), 159 O.A.C. 174; 165 C.C.C.(3d) 295 (C.A.), consd. [para. 86].

R. v. Morrison (P.) (1989), 34 O.A.C. 50; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), consd. [para. 96].

R. v. Smyk (K.W.) et al. (1993), 88 Man.R.(2d) 303; 51 W.A.C. 303; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 63 (C.A.), consd. [para. 98].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.) (1997), 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Ha (M.T.), [2005] O.T.C. Uned. 4; 2005 CarswellOnt 12 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Strachan, [1989] 1 W.W.R. 385; 90 N.R. 273 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Jacoy (1988), 89 N.R. 61; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 46 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 114].

R. v. Russell (M.C.) et al. (1999), 27 B.C.T.C. 81 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 122].

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, consd. [para. 123].

R. v. Mitchell (C.) (2005), 295 N.B.R.(2d) 251; 766 A.P.R. 251; 2006 CarswellNB 99 (C.A.), consd. [para. 124].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bentley, Christopher, Criminal Practice Manual - A Practical Guide to Handling Criminal Cases (2000), p. 5-31 [para. 110].

Hubbard, Robert W., Brauti, Peter M., and Fenton, Scott K., Wiretapping and Other Electronic Surveillance: Law and Procedure, paras. 3.7.10 [para. 95]; 3.7.10.1 [para. 103]; 4.10 [para. 90].

Counsel:

Avocats:

William Wister and Kelly A. Winchester, on behalf of the Crown;

W. Rodney Macdonald, on behalf of T.K.E.

This application was heard on February 8 to 10, and April 10, 2006, by Glennie, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Saint John, who delivered the following decision orally on September 6, 2006.