R. v. Strachan
Encyclopedia
R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada
decision on the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2)
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
subsequent to a violation of a Charter right. The Court held that there does not need to be a causal connection between the violation and the evidence, but rather there need only be a temporal link between the two.
for drug related offences. A warrant was obtained under section 10(2) of the Narcotic Control Act
to search his apartment. The police arrive at his apartment and found him with two other men, along with a substantial amount of drugs and money. All three men were arrested and read their rights. Upon arrest the officer in charge denied Strachan's attempt to use the phone to contact a lawyer on the basis that he still needed to get "matters under control". The officer later testified at trial that he intended to first question the suspects and find guns that were suspected of being there before he would allow them to call a lawyer. Strachan was finally allowed to contact his lawyer from the police station an hour and forty minutes after the arrest.
At trial, it was held that Strachan's right to counsel, under section 10(b)
of the Charter, was violated, that the evidence must be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and that Strachan be acquitted.
On appeal, it was held that Strachan's right to counsel was violated but the evidence should not be excluded as there was no causal connection between the violation and evidence collected. A new trial was ordered.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether there was a violation of Strachan's right against unreasonable search and seizure under section 8
of the Charter and whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.
Justice Lamer wrote his own separate concurring opinion.
Justice Wilson wrote her an opinion finding that there was a violation of section 8 but agreed with the rest of the Court that the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2).
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...
decision on the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2)
Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated...
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...
subsequent to a violation of a Charter right. The Court held that there does not need to be a causal connection between the violation and the evidence, but rather there need only be a temporal link between the two.
Background
Joseph Strachan was under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceRoyal Canadian Mounted Police
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police , literally ‘Royal Gendarmerie of Canada’; colloquially known as The Mounties, and internally as ‘The Force’) is the national police force of Canada, and one of the most recognized of its kind in the world. It is unique in the world as a national, federal,...
for drug related offences. A warrant was obtained under section 10(2) of the Narcotic Control Act
Narcotic Control Act
The Narcotic Control Act, passed in 1961, was one of Canada's national drug control statutes prior to its repeal by the 1996 Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It implemented the provisions of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.-References:...
to search his apartment. The police arrive at his apartment and found him with two other men, along with a substantial amount of drugs and money. All three men were arrested and read their rights. Upon arrest the officer in charge denied Strachan's attempt to use the phone to contact a lawyer on the basis that he still needed to get "matters under control". The officer later testified at trial that he intended to first question the suspects and find guns that were suspected of being there before he would allow them to call a lawyer. Strachan was finally allowed to contact his lawyer from the police station an hour and forty minutes after the arrest.
At trial, it was held that Strachan's right to counsel, under section 10(b)
Section Ten of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Ten of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifies rights upon arrest or detention, including the rights to consult a lawyer and the right to habeas corpus. As a part of a broader range of legal rights guaranteed by the Charter, section 10 rights may be limited by the Oakes test...
of the Charter, was violated, that the evidence must be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and that Strachan be acquitted.
On appeal, it was held that Strachan's right to counsel was violated but the evidence should not be excluded as there was no causal connection between the violation and evidence collected. A new trial was ordered.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether there was a violation of Strachan's right against unreasonable search and seizure under section 8
Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This Charter right provides Canadians with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state...
of the Charter and whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.
Reasons of the court
Chief Justice Dickson, writing for the majority of the Court, held that there was no violation of section 8 and the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.Justice Lamer wrote his own separate concurring opinion.
Justice Wilson wrote her an opinion finding that there was a violation of section 8 but agreed with the rest of the Court that the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2).