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. W.(A.) 2024
The client agreed to loan woman whom he had previously had sexual relations with a $100 loan to help her make rent for the month at her apartment in Penticton BC. The woman flirted with the client prior to his arrival at her apartment to give her the money by sending...
The King v. L.(K.) 2024
The client was pulled over by police after being observed weaving late at night on the highway near Kelowna BC. The officer smelled alcohol and had the client blow into a roadside device. The device registered a “fail” reading and the client was arrested and taken...
The King v. S.(M.) 2024
The client was driving down a residential street in Kelowna when she collided with a parked car. The police came to the scene and noted symptoms of impairment. They detained the client for impaired driving and made a breath demand on her. She ended up blowing well...