The Queen v. H.(B.) 2016
A police officer attended a rural property to inform the client that he no longer had to attend court to answer to a charge. While on the property, the officer noticed that a truck did not have the correct licence plate. After querying the vehicle in his computer system he determined that the truck was stolen. The client was arrested and he made some comments to the officer suggesting that the truck was controlled by him. As a result he was charged with possession of stolen property over $5000.00. At trial, Mr. van der Walle successfully argued that the Crown had failed to prove that the statements made by the client about the truck being his were free and voluntary. As such, the judge excluded the statements from evidence. The Crown prosecutor, very much to his credit, decided that he no longer had enough evidence to continue with the prosecution and directed a stay of proceedings. Client did not testify.
Related Stories
The King v. C.(R.) 2024
The police began investigating the client after a woman reported to them that two men had come to the door looking for her son. The woman explained that the men had told her son that he owed money from a drug debt and that he would be hurt if he did not pay. When...
The King v. T.(R.) 2024
Police were conducting a surveillance operation on the client and many other members of a suspected drug trafficking group in Vernon, Armstrong, and Enderby. The client was well known to police as he had a lengthy criminal record including no less than 7 prior...
The King v. S.(M.) 2024
A semi truck driver was cruising on the highway just outside of Revelstoke when another vehicle pulled out to pass him on a double solid line. While executing the pass, the other vehicle ended up clipping the semi as it tried to pull back into its lane which resulted...