Blog

Visual contents concept. Social networking service. Streaming video. communication network.

Mr. Ahmed Abdullahi was arrested in June 2013 as a result of an integrated police investigation into the trafficking of illegal firearms in Toronto. A jury convicted him of various firearm offences and one count of participation in the activities of a criminal organization for the purpose of trafficking weapons, contrary to section 467.11 of the Criminal Code. This last conviction was the only issue before the Supreme Court of Canada.Under section 467.11, the Crown must first prove the existence of a “criminal organization”. The Criminal Code defines a criminal organization as a group of three or more people, however organized, that facilitates or commits a serious offence for a financial or other benefit. Organized crimes attract greater police powers for certain authorizations and warrants, and harsher sentences than those committed by groups that come together randomly to commit a single offence. In its 2012 judgment in R. v. Venneri, the Supreme Court of Canada said that for a criminal organization to be “organized”, it must have “some form of structure and degree of continuity”.Before members of the jury started their deliberations, the trial judge instructed them on the required elements of the criminal organization offence, including the need to first prove the existence of such an organization. On that element of the offence, the judge read the definition of a criminal organization but did not mention the need to identify a structure and a degree of continuity to qualify a group as such. In the end, the jury found Mr. Abdullahi guilty on all counts, including that of participating in the activities of a criminal organization for the purpose of trafficking weapons.On appeal, Mr. Abdullahi argued the judge’s instruction to the jury was insufficient because it failed to explain that a criminal organization must have structure and continuity. The majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal and concluded that the jury had been properly instructed. The dissenting judge disagreed and would have ordered a new trial on that count. Mr. Abdullahi appealed the conviction to this Court.The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal.The trial judge’s instruction did not sufficiently equip the jury to decide if a criminal organization existed.

The Supreme Court orders a new trial due to insufficient jury instructions.

Young laptop user woman using computer, typing on keyboard

Retired Corporal (Cpl.) Colin McGregor was posted to the Canadian Defence Liaison Staff at Canada’s embassy in Washington, D.C. Given his position in the United States, Cpl. McGregor had diplomatic immunity in respect of his person, property and residence under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.In 2017, one of his Canadian Armed Forces colleagues posted to the United States discovered two audio recording devices in her home. She believed Cpl. McGregor had placed them there and reported the discovery to her senior officer. Upon investigating the matter, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service found there were reasonable grounds to believe Cpl. McGregor had committed the offences of voyeurism and possession of a device to surreptitiously record private communications. Yet, the Investigation Service could not search his residence in Alexandria, Virginia because it was not located on Canadian Armed Forces property. As a result, the lead investigator asked the Canadian Embassy to waive Cpl. McGregor’s immunity under the Vienna Convention. With immunity waived, the Alexandria Police Department obtained a warrant that authorized the search of Cpl. McGregor’s residence, as well as any electronic devices found there.&nbsp;The American police entered Cpl. McGregor’s residence and invited the Investigation Service to conduct the search. Officers seized electronic devices and searched some of them while in the residence. They discovered evidence of the suspected offences as well as others. The electronic devices were removed to Canada and searched further, in line with Canadian warrants.&nbsp;A military judge dismissed Cpl. McGregor’s motion to exclude the evidence for breach of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects people from “unreasonable search or seizure”. The military judge convicted him of voyeurism, possession of a device for surreptitious interception of private communications, sexual assault and disgraceful conduct. That decision was affirmed by the Court Martial Appeal Court.&nbsp;Cpl. McGregor then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Both parties relied on this Court’s decision in R. v. Hape about whether the Charter applies to searches and seizures conducted by Canadian police officers in other countries. Cpl. McGregor took the position that the Charter applies in this case to the Investigation Service, whereas the Crown argued the opposite.&nbsp;A unanimous Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed his convictions.The investigation did not violate Cpl. McGregor’s rights under section 8 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court rules Canadian military investigators did not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms while investigating a Canadian soldier’s criminal activity abroad.

Featured Articles

The Supreme Court orders a new trial due to insufficient ...

The Supreme Court rules Canadian military investigators d...