Regina (respondent) v. Rajan Singh Mann (appellant) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (CA040090; 2014 BCCA 231) Indexed As: R. v. Mann (R.S.) British Columbia Court of Appeal Bauman, C.J.B.C., Levine and Neilson, JJ.A. June 18, 2014. Summary: The British Columbia Supreme Court, sitting without a jury, convicted Mann of multiple charges relating to a kidnapping: see [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1265. The principal trial issue was whether Mann was the "third kidnapper". Mann appealed the conviction on three grounds: (a) the trial judge erred in ruling that Mann's election to be tried by a judge without a jury survived the recommencement of the proceedings within one year of the Attorney General entering a stay of proceedings on a direct indictment (see [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1248); (b) the trial judge erred in finding that searches of two BlackBerry devices seized during the arrests were valid under the common law power of search incident to arrest and did not violate s. 8 of the Charter (see [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1247); and (c) the trial judge misapprehended key aspects of the evidence in concluding that Mann was the third kidnapper. The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: (1) Mann was not entitled to be tried by a judge with a jury; (2) the warrantless searches of Mann's BlackBerrys breached his right under s. 8 of the Charter, but the evidence was not excluded under s. 24(2); and (3) the trial judge did not misapprehend any evidence, or if he did, it was not material to his decision. Editor's Note: This was the first case involving a search of a smartphone incident to arrest to be considered by the British Columbia Court of Appeal: see paragraph 80. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association appeared as an intervenor on the issue. Civil Rights - Topic 1508 Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - See paragraphs 67 to 123. Civil Rights - Topic 1524 Property - Personal property - Search and seizure by police (incl. computers or cellphones) - See paragraphs 67 to 123. Civil Rights - Topic 1646 Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - See paragraphs 67 to 123. Civil Rights - Topic 1655.3 Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Cell phones - See paragraphs 67 to 123.
Civil Rights - Topic 3138 Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to jury and jury selection (Charter s. 11(f)) - See paragraphs 46 and 47. Civil Rights - Topic 8368 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - See paragraphs 124 to 136. Criminal Law - Topic 2850 Jurisdiction - Consent jurisdiction - Elections and re-elections - Re-election by accused - General - See paragraphs 21 to 65. Criminal Law - Topic 3147 Special powers - Power of search - Search incidental to arrest or detention - See paragraphs 67 to 123. Criminal Law - Topic 3152 Special powers - Power of search - Warrantless searches - See paragraphs 67 to 123. Criminal Law - Topic 3154 Special powers - Power of search - Evidence obtained - Admission of - See paragraphs 124 to 136. Criminal Law - Topic 4306.2 Procedure - Jury - General - Loss of right to jury trial - See paragraphs 21 to 65. Criminal Law - Topic 4361 Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding identification - See paragraphs 137 to 176. Criminal Law - Topic 4486 Procedure - Trial - Stay of proceedings - See paragraphs 21 to 65. Criminal Law - Topic 4866 Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Misapprehension of evidence - See paragraphs 137 to 176. Criminal Law - Topic 5253 Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Proof of - See paragraphs 137 to 176. Police - Topic 3185 Powers - Search - Following arrest or detention - See paragraphs 67 to 123. Police - Topic 3186 Powers - Search - Private property - See paragraphs 67 to 123.
Words and Phrases Recommence - The British Columbia Court of Appeal interpreted the word "recommence" in s. 579(2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 48 to 51. Cases Noticed: R. v. Allen (1862), 121 E.R. 929 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 36]. R. v. Spence (1919), 31 C.C.C. 365 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37]. R. v. Takagishi (1932), 60 C.C.C. 34 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 39]. Dowson v. R., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 144; 49 N.R. 57, refd to. [para. 42]. R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115, refd to. [para. 46]. R. v. Larosa (N.), [2000] O.J. No. 976 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49]. Purves v. Canada (Attorney General) (1990), 54 C.C.C.(3d) 355 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 52]. Vukelich (M.) v. R. (1993), 32 B.C.A.C. 81; 53 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52]. R. v. Jones (E.M.) and Francis (G.G.) (1997), 97 O.A.C. 290; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52]. Canada (Attorney General) v. Filmer, P.C.J., et al. (1992), 21 B.C.A.C. 141; 37 W.A.C. 141; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 70 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54]. R. v. Smith (K.B.) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Filmer, P.C.J., et al. R. v. Porisky (R.A.) et al., [2014] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.024; 2014 BCCA 146, refd to. [para. 58]. R. v. Gould (E.) - see R. v. Porisky (R.A.) et al. R. v. Smith (L.K.) (1993), 31 B.C.A.C. 189; 50 W.A.C. 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59]. R. v. Deakin, [1912] B.C.J. No. 5 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60]. R. v. Sagliocco (1979), 51 C.C.C.(2d) 188 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 60]. R. v. Cohen, [1983] B.C.J. No. 2062 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60]. R. v. Switzer (1985), 22 C.C.C.(3d) 60 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 60]. R. v. Frattura (1987), 40 C.C.C.(3d) 379 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 60]. R. v. Atkinson (1981), 33 N.B.R.(2d) 137; 80 A.P.R. 137; 57 C.C.C.(2d) 489 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1981), 36 N.R. 421 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 61]. R. v. Smith (G.A.) (1989), 74 Sask.R. 266 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61]. R. v. Giles (D.F.) et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. H63; 2007 BCSC 1147, refd to. [para. 74]. R. v. U.P.M., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253; 399 N.R. 200; 346 Sask.R. 1; 477 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 76]. R. v. Morelli (U.P.) - see R. v. U.P.M. R. v. Caron (D.W.) (2011), 299 B.C.A.C. 217; 508 W.A.C. 217; 2011 BCCA 56, refd to. [para. 76]. R. v. Polius, [2009] O.J. No. 3074 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 76]. R. v. D'Annunzio, [2010] O.J. No. 4333 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 76]. R. v. Manley (M.) (2011), 275 O.A.C. 81; 2011 ONCA 128, refd to. [para. 79]. R. v. Fearon (K.) (2013), 302 O.A.C. 284; 2013 ONCA 106, leave to appeal granted [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 141, refd to. [para. 79]. R. v. Hiscoe (J.S.) (2013), 328 N.S.R.(2d) 381; 1039 A.P.R. 381; 2013 NSCA 48, refd to. [para. 79].
R. v. Vu (T.L.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 657; 451 N.R. 199; 345 B.C.A.C. 155; 589 W.A.C. 155; 2013 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 79]. R. v. Dhillon (N.S.), [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 869; 2013 BCSC 869, refd to. [para. 80]. R. v. Vye (D.E.), [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 93; 2014 BCSC 93, refd to. [para. 80]. Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 84]. R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 85]. Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, consd. [para. 86]. R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208, consd. [para. 86]. R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 90]. R. v. Golden (I.V.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 679; 279 N.R. 1; 153 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 83, refd to. [para. 90]. R. v. Hiscoe (J.S.) (2011), 310 N.S.R.(2d) 142; 983 A.P.R. 142; 2011 NSPC 84, refd to. [para. 106]. R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 125]. R. v. Cole (R.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 34; 436 N.R. 102; 297 O.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 125]. R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 138]. R. v. Lohrer (A.W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 732; 329 N.R. 1; 208 B.C.A.C. 1; 344 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 140]. R. v. Bird (C.P.) (2013), 339 B.C.A.C. 300; 578 W.A.C. 300; 2013 BCCA 316, refd to. [para. 141]. Statutes Noticed: Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 579(1) [para. 29]; sect. 579(2) [para. 30]. Authors and Works Noticed: Maitland, F.W., The Constitutional History of England (1974), p. 481 [para. 35]. Salhany, Roger E., Canadian Criminal Procedure (6th Ed.) (2013 Looseleaf Supp.), p. 6-74 [para. 43]. Tingle, Bryce C., The Strange Case of the Crown Prerogative Over Private Prosecutions or Who Killed Public Interest Law Enforcement (1994), 28 U.B.C. L. Rev. 309, p. 321 [para. 35]. Counsel: P.J. Wilson, Q.C., and M. Rankin, for the appellant; G.C. Banning, for the respondent; B.B. Olthuis and E.M. Patel, for the intervenor. This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 20 and 21, 2014, before Bauman, C.J.B.C., Levine and Neilson, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In reasons written by Levine, J.A., the Court delivered the following judgment, dated June 18, 2014.
Editor: E. Joanne Oley Appeal dismissed.