It must be understood that evidence obtained through an infringement of Charter rights is not automatically excluded, as it will only be excluded “if its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” To include the evidence that was obtained from Collins, the SCC had to assess the legality and the contents of the evidence to determine whether the inclusion would be detrimental to court proceedings. If the court made the evidence admissible in court, would it bring the administration of justice into disrepute? By disrepute, the courts had to determine whether the admission of the narcotics sealed in the green balloon would be in the best interest of society due to the violation of Collins Charter rights. The SCC …show more content…
It is under this line of inquiry to determine “whether the system’s repute will be better served by the admission or the exclusion of the evidence, and it is thus necessary to consider any disrepute that may result from the exclusion of the evidence.” The impact of the admission must be weighed against the exclusion in order to determine the fairness and seriousness of the breach compared to the importance of the evidence for the Crown. As Justice Lamer stated, the court must dissociate itself from the aggressive actions of the police, especially if such actions were based on assumptions and suspicions. The judiciary would be brought into disrepute if the evidence were admitted, as Constable Woods did not have reasonable and probable grounds to perform a throat hold. When evidence is obtained illegally, the evidence must be excluded through the assessment of these factors in order to reflect society’s notion of protecting Charter rights. The Charter guarantees that Collins should have received a fair trial, thus the inclusion of illegally obtained evidence will depreciate one’s access to a fair …show more content…
By treating the offender as if the evidence had not been obtained through police misconduct, the admission of the illegally obtained evidence harms the administration of justice, as the police did not use the appropriate methods to secure a search warrant nor pursue alternative measures. Through a condemnation rational, there is a recognition that the violation of one’s Charter rights cannot be undone, but the exclusion of the evidence may lead to acquittals, leaving the justice system to lose reputation as an institution of social control. It is deemed unconstitutional if the government benefits from the admission of illegally obtained evidence, which is unjust. Exclusion of evidence is compensatory to the accused in order to “reinstate the status quo ante between the individual and the state.” Collins benefited from section 24(2) of the Charter as it gives “most defendants a windfall – the remedy is grossly disproportionate to the wrong,” as Collins case was ordered for a new trial due to technical breaches from police