Judge says all evidence found in a warrantless search will be admitted
Article content
A provincial court judge ruled Monday that evidence argued during a voir dire for an Oxford OPP officer facing firearms offences is admissible in court.
In a 72-page decision released Sept. 30, Justice Matthew Graham wrote that despite the fact that Timothy Healey’s faced “a significant violation of his privacy interest” under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “the firearms seized amount to reliable real evidence and are essential to the Crown’s case.”
Graham said Monday that while Healey’s Section 8 rights were violated, his rights under Section 9 and 10 were not.
Section 8 provides Canadian protection against unreasonable search and seizure, Section 9 deals with arbitrary detainment and imprisonment and Section 10 protects Canadian’s rights upon arrest and detention.
“Firearm charges are serious and society’s interest in a trial on the merits would be advanced by admission of the evidence,” Graham wrote in his decision.
Graham also wrote that “balancing the relevant considerations and findings, and having regard to the long-term interests of the administration of criminal justice as opposed to exclusive focus on a single case, admission of the seized firearm would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”
A four-day hearing last June, or trial within a trial, centred on whether or not illegal weapons, ammunition and magazines discovered in the possession of Healey were unlawfully seized by police on March 22, 2012.
Healey, who had been off work on long-term disability, has pleaded not guilty to those charges.
The seizure of three unlicensed weapons from his home resulted from what police said was verbal consent from Healey to retrieve 34 licensed weapons, following an assault charge laid the previous evening. The assault charge was later withdrawn. Healey later handed over two illegal handguns that had also been illegally stored.
Assistant Crown attorney David Foulds, who argued that police didn't violate Healey's rights, said while he was “happy with the result because the evidence was admitted” he needed time to “read and digest” the findings before he could comment on how he would proceed.
Healey's defence lawyer, Leo Kinahan, said in June that from the start his client's rights "had been kicked around like a ball on a soccer pitch."
He said if the evidence was admitted, “no one is safe."
"There is potential for monstrous abuse,” he told the court.
Kinahan said Monday he could not comment while the case was still going through the courts.
Healey is back in court on October 8.