Charter Detention and the Exclusion of Evidence after Grant, Harrison and Suberu
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In July 2009 the Supreme Court of Canada released R. v. Grant, R. v. Suberu, R. v. Harrison and R. v. Shepherd. The quartet of judgments made major changes to the law governing the section 9 right against arbitrary detention, the section 10(b) right to counsel and the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence under section 24(2). This article discusses the importance of the decisions, which clarified the meaning of detention, established that unlawful detentions are necessarily arbitrary and determined that rights to counsel must be given “immediately” upon detention. Most significantly, Grant overturned 22 years of settled section 24(2) jurisprudence and established a new analytical framework. This article examines the the oretical implications of the new framework and whether the section 7 self-incrimination jurisprudence continues to be valid. This article also considers the practical effects of the new section 24(2) analysis. Although it makes it easier for the prosecution to argue for the admission of derivative evidence, the renewed emphasis on police misconduct may make it easier to exclude evidence where the police deliberately or negligently disregard Charter rights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".