R. v. Richards Date:, 2015 BCPC 354

Citation: R. v. Richards Date: 20151109 2015 BCPC 0354 File No: 92070-1 Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. TYLER ALAN RICHARDS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE JANZEN Counsel for the Crown: N. Gulamhussein Counsel for the Defendant: C. Johnson Place of Hearing: Port Coquitlam , B.C. Dates of Hearing: July 2 and 3, 2015 Date of Judgment: November 9, 2015

[ 1 ] THE COURT : In a decision dated October 16th, 2015, I concluded that the detention of Tyler Richards by Cst. Dongriah of the Coquitlam RCMP on March 4th, 2014, was arbitrary and a breach of Mr. Richards' rights under s. 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

I also concluded that the search of his person and his vehicle was unlawful and, therefore, unreasonable and a breach of his rights under s. 8 of the Charter . [ 2 ] I must now consider whether the evidence that is the fruit of those searches should be excluded because to admit it into evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. [ 3 ] Crown counsel made no submissions. [ 4 ] The accused referred to the B.C. Supreme Court case of R. v. Ulm , [2015] BCSC 1979 to argue that the evidence should be excluded.

In deciding whether to include or exclude the evidence, I must apply the three-part test set out in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Grant , [2009] SCC 32 and summarized by the B.C. Court of Appeal in R. v. Reddy , [2010] BCCA 11. [ 5 ] The first factor is the seriousness of the Charter -infringing breach. In this case, I concluded that Cst. Dongriah had fabricated evidence in order to create a pretext for detaining Mr. Richards and subsequently searching his person and his vehicle. This misconduct not only infringes Mr. Richards' Charter rights.

It also challenges the fundamental integrity of the Canadian justice system that relies on officers of the State to act with honest intentions in the performance of their duties and to tell the truth under oath. I would describe it as very serious State misconduct. [ 6 ] The second factor is the impact of the breach on the rights of Mr. Richards. The impact was significant. Mr. Richards was detained for several hours from freely going about his business and his rights to privacy were breached. [ 7 ] The third factor requires me to consider society's interests in adjudication on the merits.

Society always has an interest in the adjudication of a case on the merits but not at any cost. [ 8 ] When I consider all of these factors, I conclude that the State misconduct in breach of Mr. Richards' fundamental rights in this case was so egregious that for the court to condone that conduct by admitting evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. [ 9 ] Hence, I exclude from evidence all of the items obtained from the search of Mr. Richards' person and vehicle. [ 10 ] MS. GULAMHUSSEIN: Sorry, Your Honour. I'm not the quickest writer. [ 11 ] THE COURT: That's fine. [ 12 ] MS.

GULAMHUSSEIN: I guess what we can do is we can enter the trial proper. The Crown will call no evidence. [ 13 ] MR. JOHNSON: And I call no evidence on behalf of the accused. [ 14 ] THE COURT: I conclude that the Crown has failed to prove the guilt of Mr. Richards beyond a reasonable doubt and I acquit. (REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)