R v T & T (2015)
Mr Rice has been retained by one of the defendants on this major cocaine production case. The police received information from an informant about suspicious activity in a residential condominium suite. The police surreptitiously installed a video surveillance camera in the hallway outside the suspected suite. The video surveillance footage was then used to obtain a number of warrants authorizing the police to conduct covert entries into the suite and a video surveillance warrant to install other video cameras inside the suite. On an evidence exclusion motion, the trial judge ruled that a warrant was not required for the installation of the hallway camera because the tenant of the suite did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common hallway under s 8 of the Charter of Rights. In another case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice came to a contrary conclusion. Concurrent trials on two Indictments in this case are scheduled in 2015.
R v P & B (2014)
The Edmonton Institution is a maximum security penitentiary located just north of Edmonton. Known as “the Max” it generally houses prisoners serving long sentences for serious crimes. In this case, P & B were inmates charged with first degree murder as a result of the stabbing death of another inmate in his cell. The state’s evidence included video surveillance footage of the range where the deceased’s cell was located, fingerprints and the evidence of two other inmates who testified at the preliminary inquiry. However, the Crown Attorney was still faced with difficulties in proving the specific intent to cause death or bodily harm likely to cause death which are alternative requirements in the definition of murder under s 229 of the Criminal Code. On the other hand, both defendants were facing life sentences and long terms of parole ineligibility if convicted of either first or second degree murder. Following protracted negotiations, both defendants pleaded guilty to manslaughter and avoided the possibility of more severe consequences. A guilty plea to manslaughter is always a compelling alternative to risking snake eyes.
R v A (2014)
During this trial on charges of conspiracy and drug trafficking the Crown Attorney called an RCMP officer to testify about conversations he had with the defendant when he was arrested on two occasions. The police officer had worked in the wire room during the wiretap investigation. The voice identification evidence was obtained during the arrests and subsequent detentions. Additional voice identification evidence was to be called from a detective with the Vancouver Police Department who was present when the defendant was interviewed as a victim in an unrelated assault two years previously. Mr Rice objected to the evidence gathered during the arrests because it was obtained in breach of his client’s right to counsel under s 10(b) of the Charter of Rights. He also objected to the testimony of the Vancouver detective because that evidence was disclosed during the trial in breach of his client’s disclosure rights under s 7 of the Charter. The trial judge agreed and the voice identification evidence was excluded from the trial.
R v C (2014)
Every person accused of a crime in Canada has a constitutional right to a trial. However, a plea of not guilty and a trial may not be the right move in every case. Where the police have conducted a thorough investigation and the state has a reasonable likelihood of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, it may be appropriate to consider negotiating a guilty plea to reduced charges or making an application to the court for a special disposition. In this case, C was charged with assault with a weapon when he used a belt to discipline his young son for correction purposes. Although the force he used was reasonable in the circumstances under s 43 of the Criminal Code, the use of the belt ran afoul of the leading case law from the Supreme Court of Canada. When C pleaded guilty as charged, Mr Rice brought an application for a discharge under s 730 of the Code. This section allows the courts to grant a discharge when it is not contrary to the public interest. A successful application means that a defendant is not convicted and would not therefore have a criminal record. In this case, the sentencing judge held that the use of the belt was not excessive, there were no serious injuries and a public record of a conviction was not necessary. The dischsrge application was granted.
A v W (2014)
In this case A was a prisoner at the Drumheller Penitentiary east of Calgary. The Warden made a decision to raise A’s security classification from medium to maximum security based upon an allegation that A was involved in a planned assault on another prisoner. The change in security classification triggered an involuntary emergency transfer to a maximum security prison. Mr Rice brought an application for an order of habeas corpus in the Court of Queen’s Bench at Calgary. An order of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy discussed in more detail in the case of M v W (2001). It was argued that the Warden breached the rules of procedural fairness by failing to give A an opportunity to make representations before the transfer. The information that was provided to A was insufficient and illegible. The chambers judge held that the Warden failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations and the duty of fairness under s 27(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The order of habeas corpus was granted and the security reclassification and involuntary transfer were set aside.