Barry Long

The appellant appealed an order setting aside his acquittal.

He argued that evidence should be excluded under s. 24 of the Charter because he was not informed of his right to retain and instruct counsel upon his initial detention, breaching s. 10(b).

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that although there was a breach upon initial detention, the evidence was obtained voluntarily after he was informed of his right to counsel.

Therefore, the evidence was not obtained in a manner that infringed a Charter right and should not be excluded.

The State of Washington sought the extradition of the respondent, who had been convicted of theft in the second degree in Washington and subsequently escaped to Canada.

The extradition judge committed the respondent for extradition, inferring fraudulent intent from his failure to return a consigned organ.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal quashed the committal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the double criminality rule is conduct-based.

The Court found that the appellant failed to establish that the respondent's conduct would constitute theft in Canada, as the Washington offence did not require fraudulent intent on its face, and such intent could not be inferred solely from the non-return of goods.