Landmark Cases: R. v. Feeney A. Summary of Case In 1991 while a murder investigation, police barged into the accused house when there was no answer at the door. The house was an equipment trailer and without any search warrant or permission the house was searched.
For a better sight at the accused the police brought him to the front of the trailer and spotted blood stains on his shirt. The accused was asked several questions and his shirt was later seized. His fingerprints were taken and he was consulted with counsel at the police detachment. The accused, Mr. Feeney was convicted guilty of second degree murder. B.Explanations of rights that have been violated This is a charter case because the Canadian charter of Rights and Freedoms states every citizens rights and freedoms and in this case, Mr.
Landmark Cases Essay Example
Feeney’s rights against unreasonable search and seizure were infringed upon. Mr. Feeney was unreasonably searched, therefore this violated his guaranteed rights under section 8 which states everyone has the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure, because the police did not have a search warrant while entering his house they infringed his rights by forcing themselves into the house and unlawfully detaining possessions that belonged to Mr.Feeney. Also, section 24(2) of the Charter had been taken into consideration which states any evidence received infringing any rights and freedoms listed in the Charter will be excluded. Since the police entered the accused’s house wrongfully the evidence they collected from the premises should be dismissed because of the error on the police’s part. C.
Analysis It is evident that Mr. Feeney’s rights were violated because during the murder investigation, the police trespassed the accused’s property without any valid search warrant.Under section 8 of the Charter it clearly states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. However the police did not follow procedures and entered the accused’s house unlawfully without a warrant. It is obvious that Mr. Feeney’s rights were infringed upon because without a valid search warrant it was illegal for the police to enter and rummage the accused’s house. D.
Discuss the final verdict Although Mr. Feeney was found guilty for second degree murder, all charges placed upon him were dropped due to his violation of rights. Mr.Feeney’s rights had first been violated when the police had illicitly entered the accused’s house and seized his possessions. This violated his rights under section 8 of the Charter. Furthermore, section 24(2) of the Charter was taken in consideration while reaching the verdict. This section states, evidence obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that.
Since the police entered the accused house in an illegitimate manner this right had been violated because the police further seized Mr.Feeney’s shirt. Due to this unlawful act, all charges opposing Mr. Feeney had the appropriate reasons to be dropped because all evidence gathered was received unjustly. I do not agree with the final verdict because the violation of rights of Mr. Feeney’s was not acceptable enough to dismiss the case in my opinion. Just because the police entered the accused house unlawfully without a warrant, does not mean a murderer should be let free to go.
Although his rights were infringed upon, his punishment should have been less severe rather than any at all.E. Why is this landmark case? This case is a landmark case because a possible murderer was able to walk out into the public without being presented in court due to the violation of his rights. Even if all evidence pointed fingers at the accused for the responsibility of the murder all charges had to be dropped since the police had unreasonably searched and seized his possessions. This case is important in Canadian legal history because search and arrests procedures have to be done correctly in order to place charges against an accused.Despite the fact the prosecutor may have all evidence against the accused to be proven guilty, if the rights of the accused are violated, the case can have a turnover. In this case it was evident that Mr.
Feeney could have the murderer but since his rights listed under the Charter were violated, his appeal was dismissed. This case can also set future precedents to similar cases as this allowing the accused possible charges to be dropped if any rights are violated. This case also raises awareness towards police officers for being more attentive during a search next time.