Rechercher sur ce blogue

samedi 7 juin 2025

Le moment et les circonstances de l'arrestation sont des paramètres à prendre en considération dans l'appréciation de la légalité de l'arrestation

R v Araya, 2025 ABCA 61

Lien vers la décision


[32]           The appellant also argues that the police should not have attempted to arrest Mr. Lugela when he was with another individual, especially in the circumstances when it would be difficult to distinguish between the two. The appellant submits that Mr. Lugela’s arrest should have been delayed until Mr. Lugela was alone or the police could be sure they were arresting Mr. Lugela. He argues the lack of steps taken by the police to avoid confusion vitiates the objectively reasonable nature of the grounds for arrest.

[33]           The circumstances of an apprehension and arrest may rapidly evolve into a different situation than that anticipated by the police. As stated by the Supreme Court in R v Mann2004 SCC 52 at paragraph 16, “Given their mandate to investigate crime and keep the peace, police officers must be empowered to respond quickly, effectively and flexibly to the diversity of encounters experienced daily on the front lines of policing”. Police officers need to make decisions in volatile, sometimes dangerous, rapidly changing situations, based on information that is often incomplete or less than exact: Beaver at para 72R v Coutu2020 MBCA 106 at para 18.

[34]           The duty of police officers to investigate crime and keep the peace as well as protect members of society often includes the need to arrest dangerous individuals as soon as possible to eliminate danger to the public: see 38(1)(a)(iv) of the Police Act, RSA 2000, c P-17. In this case, the police knew that Mr. Lugela had been in possession of a firearm and that the two individuals in question had entered into a store with a satchel of the kind that Mr. Lugela often used to carry a firearm. The police decision to apprehend Mr. Lugela in the parking lot took into consideration factors such as preserving evidence and effecting the arrest without endangering members of the public, the police officers and the individuals in question. The police officers knew that Mr. Lugela was one of the two individuals and could not be expected to anticipate with exactitude what would occur and what actions the appellant might undertake. Their decision did not undermine the lawfulness of the arrest.

Aucun commentaire:

Publier un commentaire

Le dédommagement à la victime doit toujours être envisagé lors de la détermination de la peine

La légitime défense

Robitaille Drouin c. R., 2022 QCCA 233  Lien vers la décision [ 16 ]        En application de cette nouvelle disposition unifiée, simplifiée...