Constable Blowes-Aybar Case Study

The agreement reached in the process of settlement of the proceedings awarded the penalty setting precedence by the name of ASIC

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is without a doubt one of Canada’s most important section entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights enacted into the Canadian Constitution as part of the Canada Act in 1982. However, the Charter was Canada’s second attempt to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens all throughout the country and on every level of government. The Canadian Bill of Rights, which preceded the Charter was enacted in 1960. However, being only a federal statute rather than a full constitutional document, it had no power and application to provincial laws. In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada only narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights, therefore rarely unlawful laws were declared inoperative and continued to exist. As a result, the ineffectiveness of the Bill of Rights led to many movements to improve the protection of rights and freedoms in Canada. However, similar to its predecessor, the Charter is not without faults, and loopholes. In some cases, it has even infringed upon certain liberties and democratic rights and freedoms. In other cases, the Charter has incited conflicts between liberty and democracy and raised questions that speculate whether it is truly democratic.

The latter case of DPP v Carr (2002) shows many similarities, providing that arrest should and can only be used as a method of last resort, and must not be used for minor offences where the defendant can be identified . In this particular matter, a highly intoxicated Mr Carr was of the belief that police were accusing him of throwing a number of rocks, when this was not the case. This confusion led Mr Carr’s to use offensive language, which provoked the police officer to caution the accused. Mr Carr was then soon after arrested for offensive language because of the continuation of this offence, and also for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duties. The main issue in this matter was whether or not the arrest was lawful, and if so, was it improper. It is important to note that this case was decided before the provisions of LEPRA was passed by the parliament and became valid law meaning the Court had to rely on common law principles to determine its outcome. The arrest for vulgar language in this case was held to be proper because the officer had reasonable suspicion (having witnessed him swearing and

The courts found that If section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada infringes or denies the rights and freedoms guaranteed by ss. 2(a), 7, 12, 15, 27 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is s. 251 justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore not inconsistent with the Constitution Act, 1982?

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

took place will be determined and explained as well as the penalties associated with this case will

The Committee did sanction the two officers and gave them both a ten-day suspension without pay. Charles also filed a civil rights complaint against the two officers to the Quebec Human Rights Commission. This complaint also included the officer’s employer: The city of Montreal. The Commission, in contrast to the Ethics committee, ruled that Charles had bee a victim of racial profiling and was to be awarded $33,000 compensation money. This includes a $25,000 penalty in moral damages because of the evidence supporting that racial profiling had occurred. This is precedent setting for Canada because cases that follow will have to take racial profiling more

1: Imagine walking through Sydney Airport, excited as you wait to catch your flight when all of a sudden a brawl that can only be described as “chaotic, wild and uncontrolled” breaks out. As you watch on, frozen in fear, a man begins to aggressively beat his rival with a metal bollard, stabbing him and killing him in cold blood; How would you feel if that man was allowed to walk the streets of NSW? Walk on the same footpath as you, shop in the same aisle as you. Well this man, Mick Hawi was allowed to, as he was released on bail five years after committing this crime.

Freedom of expression, set under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is one of Canada’s most valued rights in the bill of rights of the Constitution. It has paved the way for the society in which thirty-five million people reside today. With this level of influence and admiration, it is truly a fundamental right. However, many ground-breaking cases have illustrated the need to limit freedom of expression. A prime example is the landmark case that took place in 1990 surrounding high school teacher, James Keegstra. This Supreme Court case touched mainly upon two sections of the Charter, and one section of the Criminal Code of Canada. These two sections in the Charter included section 1 (reasonable limits), and

In integration Robert commenced to do certain things such as, picking up chairs, and tables and commenced to move things around. Two rcmp officers who were at the scene asked him to stop immediately, however Robert had arduous time to understand, as a result the officers tasered him at YVR, and later pinned him to the floor, and apprehended him. Later on he was pronounced dead, and was withal diagnosed with phrenic disorder. The police were found culpable and were asked to reginise from their position cause his death by using force threat with a lethal weapon. This case was kenned as the Braidwood commission, and have found the malfeasance results in this case. In integration they additionally utilized the weapon without having no justification. Furthermore, several police departments have invested in body cameras due to the research on abused power. Body cameras have shown the police work during duty, and the use of force in a controlled way. This has helped us understand, and look at the results during officers on duty, however these cameras have cost the government of Canada tons of money to supply every department with such

In the New York Time Article by Timothy William, Inquiry to Examine Racial Bias in the San Francisco Police Department, first thing to remember known as implied social perception, implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. Another key point of argument is that there is no systematic bias in the criminal justice base on race. To point out, in performing their policing duties, police officer are able to exercise a high degree of discretion. This means that they have a have a broad freedom to make a decision about how to act on the given situation. For this reason some police officer deliberately use their wide power of discretion and their authority to perform acts of misconduct. In this article it is generally agreed that discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin is morally wrong and a violation of the principle of impartiality. In fact impartiality principles requires that those who are equal be treated equally based on similarities, and that race not be a relevant consideration in the assessment. However, in May, District Attorney George Gascon appointed a three-judge body of distinguished jurists to look into bias in the department following a series of misconduct scandals, the most troubling being a group of police officers who were caught sending racist text messages. Now, the scope, aim, participants and timeline of the ongoing investigation have been revealed in a series

P alleges excessive force and false arrest. P alleges it was West Indian Day Parade weekend and large group of individuals were on the streets. P alleges there was individual who was speaking against police brutality. P alleges she was walking away from him when MOS threw her against the wall and handcuffed her. P alleges the MOS denied her medical attention and transported her to the precinct. P alleges that she was taken to the hospital from the precinct. MOS Raymond Weng states that MOS were directing the gather which had gather to disperse. There was a male who refused to leave the location. When MOS went to arrest him and he resisted, then P began pushing MOS away from the male. MOS Weng states that P attempt to strike his supervising

police commissioner is clear from the ad. In addition, the jury heard the testimony of a

This essay will critically analyse what affect the Macpherson report had on the Police Service and the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Jack Straw appointed Sir William Macpherson to examine the conduct of the Police Service in July 1997 (Peter Joyce, 2010, 59) following the racially motived attack on Stephen Lawrence leading to his death. The murder of Stephen Lawrence took place on the 22nd April 1993 while he was waiting for the bus with his friend Duwayne Brooks. Unfortunately Stephen Lawrence was fatally stabbed twice by a group of 5 or 6 racist white youths. The Macpherson report was issued because of a failing in the

Issue 3: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada does not infringe on the Equality Rights listed in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.