The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that evidence obtained during an unlawful arrest can be deemed admissible under certain circumstances. In a recent ruling, the court restored the conviction of Stuart Sabiston for firearms offences that originated from his 2019 arrest, despite the evidence being obtained through an unlawful detention. The decision has significant implications for the interpretation of Article 8 and Article 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guard against unreasonable search and seizure and arbitrary detention, respectively.
The key piece of evidence in the trial was a loaded sawed-off shotgun found in Sabiston’s possession. Sabiston argued that the evidence was inadmissible as it was discovered during a search following an unlawful detention. The trial judge, however, allowed the evidence, a decision that the Supreme Court eventually upheld.
The court’s ruling aligned with the dissenting opinion of Justice Tholl from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, who noted that while the arrest breached Sabiston’s Charter rights, the police had reasonable suspicions based on his gang affiliations and the fact he was wearing a bullet-proof vest, which they suspected was stolen. Justice Tholl acknowledged the breaches were not committed with malice, suggesting law enforcement would have eventually discovered the firearm through “lawful means.” The Supreme Court agreed, determining that the breaches were mitigated by these circumstances, and societal interests weighed heavily in favor of adjudicating the charges.
In contrast, Justice Moreau penned the sole dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court. Her stance reflected the majority opinion of the appellate court, emphasizing the precedent set by Section 24(2) of the Charter, which typically calls for the exclusion of evidence if the admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. She argued that there was no clear connection between Sabiston and any recent criminal activity, which meant that the evidence would not have surfaced without the unlawful detention.
The case, having reaffirmed the conviction, will return to the appellate court for consideration of Sabiston’s sentence appeal. The broader impact of this ruling will likely be scrutinized as it offers a nuanced interpretation of when admitting evidence procured through breaches of Charter rights might still serve justice. For further insight into the court’s ruling, the full article can be accessed on JURIST.