Section 24(2) in the Trial Courts: An Empirical Analysis of the Legal and Non-legal Determinants of Excluding Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence in Canada
This empirical study explores the legal and non-legal factors influencing trial judges’ decisions to admit or exclude illegally obtained evidence under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mining an original dataset of 1,472 reported decisions from 2013–2018, we found little...
| Published in: | Osgoode Hall Law Journal |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
Osgoode Digital Commons
2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol58/iss3/1 https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3711 https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/context/ohlj/article/3711/viewcontent/uc.pdf |
| Summary: | This empirical study explores the legal and non-legal factors influencing trial judges’ decisions to admit or exclude illegally obtained evidence under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mining an original dataset of 1,472 reported decisions from 2013–2018, we found little evidence that they are affected by judges’ gender or partisan ideology. We did find, in contrast, that they are substantially influenced by judges’ previous professional backgrounds: Former criminal defence lawyers are more likely to exclude evidence than former non-criminal practitioners, who are in turn more likely to exclude evidence than former prosecutors. We also found significant regional disparities, with judges in Quebec, British Columbia, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia more likely to exclude evidence than Alberta judges. The study also revealed that judges are more likely to admit evidence when trying more serious charges and less likely to do so when trying female defendants. |
|---|