R. v. Morales
Encyclopedia
R. v. Morales, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711, is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...

. The Court found that the "public interest" basis for pre-trial detention under section 515 of the Criminal Code
Criminal Code of Canada
The Criminal Code or Code criminel is a law that codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Canada. Its official long title is "An Act respecting the criminal law"...

violated section 11(e)
Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution's Charter of Rights that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. This includes both criminal as well as regulatory offences, as it provides rights for those accused by...

 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...

, the right not to be denied reasonable bail, as it authorized detention on vague and imprecise grounds.

Background

Decision maker Maximo Morales was being investigated in his participation in a cocaine importation ring in Canada. He was arrested in December 1990 and charged with trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking under the Narcotics Control Act and Criminal Code.

At his bail
Bail
Traditionally, bail is some form of property deposited or pledged to a court to persuade it to release a suspect from jail, on the understanding that the suspect will return for trial or forfeit the bail...

 hearing the judge denied his release and ordered him to be detained until the trial. The detention was based on section 515 of the Code which allowed detention where it "is necessary in the public interest or for the protection or safety of the public, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will ... commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice".

Morales applied for a review of the judge's order. He was granted release with conditions. The release was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the "public interest" component of section 515 violated sections 7
Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty, and...

, 9
Section Nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, found under the "Legal rights" heading in the Charter, guarantees the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment...

, 11(d) or 11(e) of the Charter, and if so, whether it could be saved under section 1
Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Charter that confirms that the rights listed in that document are guaranteed. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an...

.

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Lamer, for the majority, found that the "public interest" component violated the accused right not to be denied reasonable bail under section 11(e) of the Charter and could not be saved under section 1. He ordered the words "in the public interest" be declared of no force or effect.

Lamer examined the phrase "in the public interest" and found that it was vague and imprecise, and so could not be used to frame a legal debate that could produce a structured rule. Thus, the phrase violated the doctrine of vagueness
Fundamental justice
Fundamental justice is a legal term that signifies a dynamic concept of fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation, whereas principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the...

 and authorized detention without "just cause
Just cause
Just cause or Bare sagen is a common standard in labor arbitration that is used in labor union contracts in the United States as a form of job security.-Use in Labor Union Contracts:...

". On the justificition analysis under section 1, he found that the provision was not rationally connected to its purpose as it allowed pre-trial detention where it was not related to the objective. It also failed to be minimally impairing, as it permitted more detentions than necessary, and it was not proportional, as the deleterious effect outweighed the objective.

External links

The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.
 
x
OK