Reasons of the court R v Suberu

1 reasons of court

1.1 detention
1.2 without delay
1.3 section 1 of charter

reasons of court

the majority judgment given mclachlin c.j. , charron j.

detention

the majority followed test detention set out in companion case of r. v. grant:

suberu not physically detained , did not face legal obligations comply officer s request wait. therefore, remaining question whether police officer s conduct lead reasonable person believe had no choice comply.

the majority found police can ask exploratory questions of individual without there being detention.

in case, circumstances reasonably perceived suberu police officer orienting himself situation , not concluding suberu involved in commission of crime. majority noted suberu did not testify, , there no evidence of suberu perceived.

the police conduct supported conclusion there no detention. officer did not attempt obstruct suberu s movement, allowed suberu sit in driver s seat of van, , of brief duration.

since suberu did not testify, there no evidence of particular personal circumstances, either him or testimony of other witnesses. suberu never indicated did not want answer officer s questions, , officer testified conversation not strained .

therefore, majority concluded there no detention prior suberu s arrest, , therefore there no violation of suberu s rights under section 10(b) of charter.

in dissenting decision, binnie j. noted proposed different test detention in grant, suberu entitled test majority handed down in grant. however, in applying majority s test detention, concluded there detention (based on fact suberu reasonably have concluded police investigating him use of stolen credit card , had been told wait ).

in second dissenting decision, fish j. agreed majority s test, agreed binnie s j. s application of test.

without delay

although there no need majority address issue (since concluded there no detention), still decided rule on issue. majority concluded without delay purpose of section 10(b) of charter means . due vulnerability of detainee in relation state. majority found court of appeal s proposition have created ill-defined , unworkable test - brief exploratory questioning abstract concept , difficult quantify, , section 10(b) intended impose specific obligations on police. exceptions concerns officer , public safely, , limitations prescribed law justified under section 1 of charter.

binnie j. agreed majority s intrepretation. fish j. did not expressly state opinion on issue, did note upon detention, mr. suberu not given rights under s. 10 of charter.

section 1 of charter

although there situations when section 1 of charter allow justified limitation on immediacy requirement rights counsel, majority concluded case had not been made out allowing type of limitation investigative questioning. majority found argument based on broader interpretation of detention decided in grant. since majority ruled police allowed interact public without engaging investigative detention, there no need create section 1 limitation.

binnie j., after concluding type of questions did constitute detention, found crown argue section 1 limitation. however, binnie j. found there not sufficient evidence or arguments before court allow point adjudicated. fish j. did not expressly state opinion on issue.