Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Situating Exclusion of Evidence Analysis in its Socio-Legal Place: A Tale of Judicial Populism

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the 2009 case of R. v. Grant, the Supreme Court of Canada reformulated the exclusion of evidence framework in the context of Charter breaches. The case was something of a revolution for those who study evidence law and the Charter. Thus far, the case has been the subject of much debate and even empirical study. Few academic papers have explored the philosophical predilections of the Court in the decision. In this paper, the authors briefly review the history of the exclusion of evidence test, explain the new framework and discuss the academic and legal responses to the case. The authors place the reasoning of the Court in a broader socio-legal context arguing that the test articulated by the Court is informed by a type of populism that combined with recent Charter cases in the police powers context allows for flexible potentials, ones that could, on occasion, encroach on due process protections. The authors call for scholars and activists to keep a close eye on the emerging jurisprudence in this critical area of Charter adjudication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For examples see http://www.thecourt.ca/2009/07/22/severing-ties-grants-new-exclusionary-framework-applied-in-harrison/; http://www.thecourt.ca/2009/09/17/post-grant-what-the-lower-courts-are-doing/ http://www.thecourt.ca/2009/12/16/r-v-grant-a-work-in-progress/; http://www.thecourt.ca/2010/04/22/post-grant-does-it-even-matter/; http://blog.torontodefencelawyers.com/tag/exclusion-of-evidence/; http://canadian-lawyers.ca/Understand-Your-Legal-Issue/Constitutional-Law/Police-Intentions-and-the-Exclusion-of-Evidence.html.

  2. The Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v. Singh, 2007 has appeared to dilute protections for the pretrial right to silence of the accused seeming to endorse an overlap of the constitutional protection with the common law confessions rule—see Plaxton, [14]. Similarly the right to counsel appears to have been circumscribed in R. v. Willier, 2010 and R. v. Sinclair, 2010. The dissent, per Binnie J., in Sinclair writes that the case law now allows that an:

    [I]ndividual (presumed innocent) may be detained and isolated for questioning by the police for at least 5 or 6 h without reasonable recourse to a lawyer, during which time the officers can brush aside assertions of the right to silence or demands to be returned to his or her cell, in an endurance contest in which the police interrogators, taking turns with one another, hold all the important legal cards (at para 98).

    This is done in the, words of the dissent, at para. 99, in “the societal interest in resolving crimes”. See also Stewart, [16]. For an example of the a case where relaxed expectation of privacy, and lower warrantless search standards meets the new Grant framework see R. v. Nolet, 2010.

References

Articles

  1. Cohn, M., & Kremnitzer, M. (2005). Judicial activism: a multidimensional model. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 18, 333.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Currie, R. C. (2011). The evolution of the law of evidence: plus Ça change…? Canadian Criminal Law Review, 15, 213.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Forester, N. (2010). Electronic surveillance, criminal investigations, and the erosion of constitutional rights in Canada: regressive U-turn or a mere bump in the road towards charter justice? Saskatchewan Law Review, 73, 23–73.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Garland, D. (1996). The limits of the sovereign state: strategies of crime control in contemporary society. British Journal of Criminology, 36, 445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hauschildt, J. (2010). Blind faith: the Supreme Court of Canada, s. 24(2) and the presumption of good faith police conduct. Criminal Law Quarterly, 56, 469.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jochelson, R. (2009). Multidimensional analysis as a window into activism scholarship: searching for meaning with sniffer dogs. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 24(2), 231.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jochelson, R. (2011). Talking trash with the Supreme Court of Canada: The reasonable expectation of privacy under the charter. In K. Kramar (Ed.), Criminology: Critical Canadian perspectives (p. 233). Don Mills: Pearson Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jochelson, R. (2009). Trashcans and constitutional custodians: the liminal spaces of privacy in the wake of Patrick. Saskatchewan Law Review, 72, 199.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Madden, M. (2011). Marshalling the data: an empirical analysis of Canada’s Section 24(2) case law in the wake of R. v. Grant. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 15, 229.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mitchell, G. (1993). Section 24(2) circumstances. Criminal Law Quarterly, 35, 434.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Paciocco, D. M. (1997). Stillman, disproportion and the fair trial dichotomy under Section 24(2). Canadian Journal of Criminal Law, 2, 163.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Paciocco, D. M. (1989-90). The judicial repeal of s. 24(2) and the development of the Canadian exclusionary rule. Criminal Law Quarterly, 32, 326.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Penney, S. (2004). Taking deterrence seriously: excluding unconstitutionally obtained evidence under Section 24(2) of the Charter. The McGill Law Journal, 49, 105.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Plaxton, M. (2009). The not-wrongness of Singh. University of British Columbia Law Review, 42, 175.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Schumann, F. (2008). “The Appearance of Justice: Public Justification in the Legal Relations”. 66 University of Toronto Faculty Law Review 189–228.

  16. Stewart, H. (2009). The confessions rule and the Charter. The McGill Law Journal, 54, 517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pottow, J. A. E. (2001). Constitutional remedies in the criminal context: a unified approach to Section 24 (part II). Criminal Law Quarterly, 44, 34.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Quigley, T. (2009). Was it Worth the Wait? The Supreme Court's New Approaches to Detention and Exclusion of Evidence 66 CR (6th) 88 a.

  19. Stewart, H. (2011). Section 24(2): before and after Grant. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 15, 253.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stuart, D. (2010). Welcome flexibility and better criteria from the Supreme Court of Canada for exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. Southwestern Journal of International Law, 16, 313.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Stuart, D. (1996). Questioning the discoverability doctrine in Section 24(2) Rulings. C.R. (4th) 48, 351.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ward, K. D. (2003). The [politics of disagreement: Recent work in constitutional theory taking the constitution away from the courts. In M. V. Tushnet (Ed.), Constitutional Self-Government by Chris Eisgruber; Law and Disagreement by Jeremy Waldron Review by: Kenneth D. Ward The Review of Politics, 65(4), 425-440.

  23. Young, D. (2008). Claims for recognition and the generalized other: the reasonable person and judgment in criminal law. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 23, 16.

    Google Scholar 

Books

  1. Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self: Gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dworkin, R. (1996). Freedom’s Law: The moral reading of the American constitution. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason (p. 88). London: Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Moran, M. (2003). Rethinking the reasonable person: an egalitarian reconstruction of the objective standard. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Paciocco, D. M., & Stuesser, L. (2008). The law of evidence in Canada, 5th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law. (Revised 2009), online: http://www.irwinlaw.com/content/assets/content-commons/521/ LE5rev_09.pdf.

  8. Pratt, J. (2007). Penal populism. Abingdon Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rawls, J. (1996). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tushnet, M. (1999). Taking the constitution away from the courts. Princeton: PUP.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zizek, S. (2008). In defense of lost causes. London: Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Zizek, S. (2009). First as tragedy, then as Farce. London: Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

Canadian Cases and Law

  1. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11

  2. Ibrahim v. The King, [1914] A.C. 599

  3. R. v. A.M., 2008 SCC 19

  4. R. v. Beaulieu 010 SCC 7, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 248

  5. R. v. Blake, [2010] O.J. No. 48, 2010 ONCA 1, 251 C.C.C. (3d) 4, 2010 CarswellOnt 23, 71 C.R. (6th) 317, 251 C.C.C. (3d)

  6. R. v. Cote 2011 SCC 46, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 215

  7. R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265

  8. R. v. Gomboc, 2010 SCC 55, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 211

  9. R. v. Grant 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353

  10. R. v. Grant, 2004 CarswellOnt 8779

  11. R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253, 2010 CarswellSask 150, 2010 CarswellSask 151, 252 C.C.C. (3d) 273, 72 C.R. (6th) 208

  12. R. v. Harrison, 2009 SCC 34, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 494

  13. R. v. Kang-Brown, 2008 SCC 18

  14. R. v. Labaye, 2005 SCC 80, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 728

  15. R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 851

  16. R. v. Patrick 2009 SCC 17,304 D.L.R. (4th) 260

  17. R. v. Rothman [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640

  18. R. v. Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 31

  19. R. v. Stillman, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607

  20. R. v. Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35, 2010 CarswellBC 2664, 2010 CarswellBC 2679, 77 C.R. (6th) 203, 259 C.C.C. (3d) 443

  21. R. v. Stanton, 254 C.C.C. (3d) 421, 2010 BCCA 208, 2010 CarswellBC 1024

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage Avenue, R3B2E9, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Richard Jochelson & Kirsten Kramar

Authors
  1. Richard Jochelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kirsten Kramar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Jochelson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jochelson, R., Kramar, K. Situating Exclusion of Evidence Analysis in its Socio-Legal Place: A Tale of Judicial Populism. Crime Law Soc Change 61, 541–561 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-014-9515-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-014-9515-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation