Quote:
Originally Posted by kunkstyle
How was it allowed to be submitted? Read that the defense tried to get it inadmissible but no explanation why that was denied.
|
Here is the analysis that the judge would go through to decide on allowing the evidence:
1) the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct - requires an assessment of whether the admission of the evidence would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and focuses on the severity of the state conduct that led to the Charter breach (which includes an analysis of whether the breach was deliberate or willful, and whether the officers were acting in good faith);
2) the impact on the Charter-protected interests of the accused - focuses on how the accused person was affected by the state conduct (which includes an analysis of the intrusiveness into the person's privacy, the direct impact on the right not to be forced to self-incriminate, and the effect on the person's human dignity); and
3) society's interest in an adjudication of the case on its merits - focuses on how reliable the evidence is in light of the nature of the Charter breach.
*source:
http://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/R_v_Grant
I don't know the case super well, but I think that the police would be given some leeway under part one of the analysis given the circumstances. At that time I do not think that there was any confirmation that the victims were dead and there was an on-going rescue mission. (Could be wrong on this though)
There was obviously a significant intrusion into his privacy and there was probably some chance that the evidence would be excluded but realistically the public would go ballistic if DNA evidence of the victims on his farm were to be excluded and he was acquitted. The judge's decision seems right to me.
It will almost certainly be appealed, but I'd be surprised if the verdict was overturned or a new trial ordered.