R. v. Wray
Encyclopedia
The Queen v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272 is a famous pre-Charter
decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
on the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence. The Court, following the English common law established in Kuruma v. The Queen, [1955] A.C. 197 (P.C.), held that judges had no discretion to exclude evidence whose admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The police arrested Wray in connection with a murder. Through the use of forceful interrogation techniques they managed to get inculpatory information from him and had him show the police where he left evidence of his crime.
At trial the judge held that the evidence must be excluded.
Martland, with Fauteux, Abbott, Ritchie, and Pigeon concurring, held that the judge did not have the discretion to exclude the evidence. They distinguished between unfair methods of collecting evidence, which should never be the basis of evidence exclusion, and unfair trial process, which should always result in exclusion of evidence. Neither of these two cases could be subject to any discretion.
In dissent, Cartwright found that all the precedents pointed to a common notion that the accused cannot be forced to self-incriminate, which implied that a judge would necessarily require discretion on the exclusion of evidence.
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...
decision of 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...
on the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence. The Court, following the English common law established in Kuruma v. The Queen, [1955] A.C. 197 (P.C.), held that judges had no discretion to exclude evidence whose admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The police arrested Wray in connection with a murder. Through the use of forceful interrogation techniques they managed to get inculpatory information from him and had him show the police where he left evidence of his crime.
At trial the judge held that the evidence must be excluded.
Martland, with Fauteux, Abbott, Ritchie, and Pigeon concurring, held that the judge did not have the discretion to exclude the evidence. They distinguished between unfair methods of collecting evidence, which should never be the basis of evidence exclusion, and unfair trial process, which should always result in exclusion of evidence. Neither of these two cases could be subject to any discretion.
In dissent, Cartwright found that all the precedents pointed to a common notion that the accused cannot be forced to self-incriminate, which implied that a judge would necessarily require discretion on the exclusion of evidence.
External links
- Full text of Supreme Court decision at Canlii.org and Lexum
- Suppressing the Truth: Judicial Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence in the United States, Canada, England and Australia