POLI_3P18_D3_S1_2018_04_04_Lecture

.docx

School

Brock University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3P18

Subject

Political Science

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by GeneralFreedomAnteater2784

Wednesday April 4, 2018 POLI 3P18 Exam Format Short answer (20%)  Choose 5 of 8  4 marks each  Could be a case or concept  Tell what it is, and why it is significant  Material from Equality Rights unity forward Essay 1 (40%)  Choose 1 of 2  it will likely be a “big topic” from the second half (after midterm)  Material from Equality Rights unity forward Integrative Essay (40%)  Put everything you’ve learned about a right claim and put it together and “play judge”  Given 2 scenarios with a set of facts and will be told what the rights claims are – you will pick one scenario – and you will tell him: o is there a right violated o do you think it is a reasonable limit? (s.1 – Oakes Test) o what remedy would you give? Issue of Remedies Remedy clause in the charter has two parts: 1. general power is a broad grant of authority to judges to do what they see appropriate and just to fix a right violates 2. the exclusionary rule – explicitly for the criminal justice system – says judges can exclude evidence if it violates collection rules a. it says judges should exclude evidence if using it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute Section 24(2) R v. Collins (1987) The police saw Collins trying to swallow a balloon (thought to be heroin) therefore, the police grabbed her in a choke hold to prevent her from swallowing it The court was deciding whether or not the balloon should be allowed to be admitted as evidence

Wednesday April 4, 2018 What makes trial un-reputable?  if there are unfair  unfair trials cause disrepute What could make a trial unfair? They came up a three stage test: 1. Does the evidence itself make the trail unfair? a. self incriminating evidence i. classic example: confession without access to council b. BUT , real evidence is not self incriminating i. evidence that exists, regardless of the charter of violation (tangible evidence) ii. ex. murder weapon 2. The seriousness of the charter violation a. court says: when we say seriousness, we are talking about police violation b. they also say that a less serious violation: i. urgency – to prevent the loss of evidence or protect someone ii. technical problems – a minor misspelling of someone’s last name iii. acting in good faith – police did what they thought was a good rule iv. there was no other way of doing it 3. What is the effect of excluding the evidence? a. will someone clearly guilty of a serious crime go free? In practice the court excluded evidence only 40% of the time They only excluded self-incriminating evidence 60% of the time Over time there was a growing frustration between the distinction between self-incriminating and real- evidence  ex. DNA  You must have DNA from the accused in order to compare the DNA collected from the scene – this is what would make DNA self-incriminating evidence The supreme court weighed in the case of: R v. Stillman (1997) Even under Collins, fingerprints were not considered self-incriminating When the police were tying to decide what to do with the evidence in Stillman case, they decided they are no different form fingerprints  Under Collins we know that fingerprints are real evidence therefore this is where the decision came from This goes to the supreme court: they face on the question of whether or not this is real evidence or self- incriminating evidence – they said DNA is both

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version