R. v. Clement, 1996 CanLII 206 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 289

R. v. Clement, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 289

Norman Terry Clement Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. Clement

File No.: 24932.

1996: June 14.

Present: La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Major JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Search and seizure ‑‑ Police searching accused’s car ‑‑ Evidence supporting trial judge’s finding that accused gave his consent to the search freely and voluntarily ‑‑ No infringement of accused’s right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 8.

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 8.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1995), 1995 CanLII 1193 (ON CA), 25 O.R. (3d) 230, 83 O.A.C. 226, 100 C.C.C. (3d) 103, 31 C.R.R. (2d) 17, 42 C.R. (4th) 40, dismissing the accused’s appeal from his conviction on charges of robbery, using a firearm to commit an indictable offence and being masked with intent to commit an indictable offence. Appeal dismissed.

Fergus J. O’Connor, for the appellant.

Beverly A. Brown, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

1Cory J. ‑‑ There was cogent evidence to support the trial judge’s finding that the appellant consented to the search of his car before he was detained. The appellant testified that he knew that the police had no right to search his car. It is apparent that he gave his consent freely and voluntarily. It follows that the search thus consented to did not infringe s. 8 of the Charter. The appeal is therefore dismissed.