Episode 4: R. v. Reilly
Her Majesty the Queen v. Liam Reilly
The Respondent, Liam Reilly was convicted of six counts of robbery and firearms-related offences. Police came to believe that the Respondent was involved in two armed robberies and attended his residence to arrest him. The Respondent was subject to an unrelated probation order that required him to present himself to the door for curfew checks. When the Respondent did not present himself one of the officers entered the residence through an unlocked rear sliding door, walked to the Respondent’s bedroom, knocked on the door, and arrested him.
Officers then performed a clearing search of the residence, during which they observed evidence related to the robberies. An information to obtain was subsequently drafted, and police obtained a search warrant, based in part on the observations made during their prior entry to the residence.
Before trial the respondent brought a charter application pursuant to s. 8 alleging that the ITO was facially invalid, and the search warrant should not have been issued. He sought the fruits of the search to be excluded under s. 24(2). Following the failure of this application the Respondent invited the court to convict him of the charges as alleged.
The Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. The majority held that while the trial judge did not err in law or principle in upholding the search warrant, they erred by considering the “charter compliant conduct” of the police as mitigating the seriousness of the breach and by failing to properly weigh the Grant factors. The majority then conducted a fresh s. 24(2) analysis, and found that despite society’s strong interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits that the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
In dissent, Justice Willock held that the majority should have deferred to the trial judge’s s. 24(2) analysis, and disagreed that the inclusion of evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada as of Right.