R. v. Thorne (G.), (1997) 167 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 55 (NFPC)

• Judge: Brown, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: Thursday June 19, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1997), 167 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 55 (NFPC)

R. v. Thorne (G.) (1997), 167 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 55 (NFPC);

    513 A.P.R. 55

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. JL.038

In The Matter Of George Thorne, charged with: (1) possession of a narcotic contrary to Section 3(1) - 3(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, and (2) possession of a restricted drug for the purpose of trafficking contrary to Section 48(2) - 48(3)(a) of the Food and Drugs Act;

And In The Matter Of an Interlocutory Application (Inter Partes) brought by George Thorne to have any evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant declared inadmissible pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 24(2).

George Thorne (applicant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(Criminal Division File No. 96A-2501)

Indexed As: R. v. Thorne (G.)

Newfoundland Provincial Court

Brown, P.C.J.

June 19, 1997.

Summary:

Thorne was charged with possession of a narcotic (marijuana and hashish) and pos­session of a restricted drug (LSD) for the purpose of trafficking. He sought a ruling that certain evidence seized from his resi­dence pursuant to a search warrant was obtained in a manner that violated his s. 8 Charter right to be secure against unreason­able search and seizure. Thorne argued that the information used to obtain the warrant did not disclose reasonable grounds for believing that a restricted drug was at his residence. He sought to have the evidence excluded pursuant to s. 24 of the Charter.

The Newfoundland Provincial Court allowed the application and excluded the evidence.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreas­onable search and seizure defined - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3183].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Thorne was charged with possession of a narcotic (marijuana and hashish) and possession of a restricted drug (LSD) for the purpose of trafficking - The Newfoundland Provincial Court held that Thorne's s. 8 Charter right was viol­ated when police searched his residence because the information used to obtain the search warrant did not disclose reasonable grounds for believing that a restricted drug was present - The court excluded the preexisting physical evidence seized in the search - While the court did not find bad faith by the informant, the breach was not merely inadvertent or technical, the breach was not motivated by urgency or to pre­vent the loss of evidence, and the charges were serious - See paragraphs 28 to 31.

Criminal Law - Topic 3097

Special powers - Issue of search warrants - Contents of information or application for issue of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3183].

Criminal Law - Topic 3183

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Information - Suf­ficiency of form and content - Thorne was charged with possession of a narcotic and possession of a restricted drug for the purpose of trafficking - He alleged that certain evidence seized from his residence was obtained in a manner that violated his s. 8 Charter right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure because the information used to obtain the search warrant did not disclose reasonable grounds for believing that a restricted drug was present - The Newfoundland Provin­cial Court agreed - The information did not contain the factual prerequisites needed for the issuance of the warrant, the infor­mation in the information was stale or dated and there was no evidence respecting the sources' reliability - See paragraphs 1 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Pippin (S.D.) (1994), 116 Sask.R. 275; 59 W.A.C. 275; 27 C.R.(4th) 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Debot (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141; 54 C.R.(3d) 120 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 49, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Roberts (A.) (1996), 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 433 A.P.R. 181 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Snelgrove (E.D.) et al. (1997), 148 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 296; 464 A.P.R. 296 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Cox (G.D.) (1996), 140 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183; 438 A.P.R. 183 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 450; 38 C.R.(4th) 330; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Pastro (1988), 66 Sask.R. 241; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 485 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Richards (J.C.) (1997), 153 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 161; 475 A.P.R. 161 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), agreed with [para. 9].

R. v. Dodge (1984), 50 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 349; 149 A.P.R. 349 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Driscoll and Laquant (1987), 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 86; 209 A.P.R. 86 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Rideout v. R. (1989), 75 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 206; 234 A.P.R. 206 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Boland (E.) (1992), 102 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 76; 323 A.P.R. 76 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Sweet (J.) (1993), 113 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 150; 353 A.P.R. 150 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301; 75 N.R. 149; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 110, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Sieben (1987), 74 N.R. 271; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 574 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 161; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 46, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 173; 24 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Wiley (R.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 263; 158 N.R. 321; 34 B.C.A.C. 135; 56 W.A.C. 135; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104; [1993] 8 W.W.R. 287; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 203, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Harris and Lighthouse Video Centres Ltd. (1987), 20 O.A.C. 26; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 23, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Richard (A.N.) (1995), 141 N.S.R.(2d) 103; 403 A.P.R. 103 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Richard (A.N.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 896; 195 N.R. 394; 150 N.S.R.(2d) 239; 436 A.P.R. 239; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 192, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 5 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Keshane (B.M.) (1995), 134 Sask.R. 314; 101 W.A.C. 314 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Keshane (B.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 413; 203 N.R. 3; 148 Sask.R. 39; 134 W.A.C. 39, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Hardy (D.A.) (1994), 45 B.C.A.C. 147; 72 W.A.C. 147 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Waterford Hospital (1983), 43 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 132; 127 A.P.R. 132 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Counsel:

Derek J. Hogan, for the applicant;

Jennifer Newbury, for the respondent.

This application was heard in St. John's, Newfoundland, by Brown, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 19, 1997.