« Rôle des forces de l'ordre » : différence entre les versions

De Le carnet de droit pénal
← Modification précédenteModification suivante →
VisuelWikicode
m Remplacement de texte : « \{\{en\|([^\}\}]+)\}\} » par « en:$1 »
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
{{en|Role_of_Law_Enforcement}}
[[en:Role_of_Law_Enforcement]]
{{Currency2|January|2020}}
{{Currency2|January|2020}}
{{LevelZero}}
{{LevelZero}}

Version du 15 juillet 2024 à 21:29

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois January 2020. (Rev. # 11746)
n.b.: Cette page est expérimentale. Si vous repérez une grammaire ou un texte anglais clairement incorrect, veuillez m'en informer à [email protected] et je le corrigerai dès que possible.

Principes généraux

Voir également: Agents de la paix
Duty to Investigate

La police a le devoir, au nom de l'intérêt public, d'enquêter sur les crimes présumés, ce qui implique de se renseigner auprès des sources d'information pertinentes, y compris l'accusé.[1] Même s’ils ont le devoir d’enquêter et d’appliquer la loi, ils disposent d’un pouvoir discrétionnaire résiduel quant au moment d’engager la procédure judiciaire.

Pas des agents du gouvernement

Les forces de l’ordre ne sont pas les agents ou les serviteurs du gouvernement qui les emploie. Ils sont plutôt au service de l'intérêt public ou de la Couronne.[2]

Responsabilité délictuelle

En common law, un agent est responsable de sa propre conduite en vertu de la loi.[3] Toutefois, la responsabilité des agents agissant dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions est régie par les lois fédérales et provinciales.[4]

Les agents de la paix peuvent être tenus responsables des préjudices infligés aux prisonniers détenus sous leur garde.[5]

Trickery

Law enforcement should expect to deal with often "sophisticated criminal" and so should not be expected to be governed by "the Marquess of Queensbury rules."[6]

The police are expected to sometimes resort to "tricks or other forms of deceit" when engaged in the investigation of crime.[7]

Unless the police engage in "dirty tricks", courts should not be engaging in determining "good taste or preferred methods of investigation."[8]

Les agents ont le devoir de protéger les personnes détenues. Ils peuvent même être tenus responsables si le détenu est agressé par d'autres et que rien n'est fait pour empêcher cette agression.[9]

Undercover operations

The use of "reverse sting" operations was found illegal.[10] "Mr Big" operations are permitted, however, the evidence collected is presumptively inadmissible unless proven otherwise.[11]

Police représentant la Couronne

Même si cela a pu être possible dans le passé, la police n'est pas autorisée à comparaître aux enquêtes sur le cautionnement pour des actes criminels.[12]

  1. ↑ R c Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35 (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310, par McLachlin CJ and Charron J, au para 63
  2. ↑ McCleave v City of Moncton, 1902 CanLII 73 (SCC), 32 SCR 106, par Strong CJ
    New South Wales v Perpetual Trustee Co , [1955] AC 457 (PC) (UK)
  3. ↑ Bainbridge v Postmaster General , [1906] 1 KB 178 (Eng CA) (UK)
  4. ↑ CAN: Crown Liability Act, s. 3
    ON: Police Services Act, s. 50(1)
    QC: Police Act
    BC: Police Act, s. 21
  5. ↑ R c Nixon, 1990 CanLII 10993 (BCCA), 57 CCC (3d) 97, par Legg JA leave refused 60 CCC (3d) vi
  6. ↑ R c Rothman, 1981 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1981] 1 SCR 640, par Lamer J ("It must... be borne in mind that the investigation of crime and the detection of criminals is not a game to be governed by the Marquess of Queensbury rules. The authorities, in dealing with shrewd and often sophisticated criminals, must sometimes of necessity resort to tricks or other forms of deceit, and should not through the rule be hampered in their work.")
  7. ↑ , ibid.
  8. ↑ R c Skinner, 1992 CanLII 4015 (MB QB), 17 CR (4th) 265, par Scollin J, au p. 14 ("Absent "dirty tricks", the courts should not set themselves up as the arbiters of good taste or of the preferred methods of investigation. It is unrealistic to demand chivalry from those who must investigate what are often heinous offences against blameless victims. ...the courts should not be so indulgent as to preserve the accused from himself and his own untrammelled tongue")
    R c Roberts, 1997 CanLII 3313 (BCCA), 34 WCB (2d) 232, par Hall JA, au para 14
    R c Bonisteel, 2008 BCCA 344 (CanLII), 236 CCC (3d) 170, par Levine J, au para 89
    R c Figliola, 2012 ONSC 4560 (CanLII), par Whitten J, au para 95
  9. ↑ R c Nixon, 1990 CanLII 10993 (BCCA), 57 CCC (3d) 97, par Legg JA
  10. ↑ R c Campbell, 1999 CanLII 676 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 565, par Binnie J
  11. ↑ see Admissions from Mr Big Operations
  12. ↑ Hearing Office Bail Hearings (Re), 2017 ABQB 74 (CanLII), 344 CCC (3d) 357, par Wittmann J
    R c Reilly, 2019 ABCA 212 (CanLII), 376 CCC (3d) 497, par Slatter JA, au para 12 ("The Alberta government first sought a judicial declaration that police officers were authorized to represent the Crown at bail hearings. That application was dismissed, with the court declaring that police officers could not appear at bail hearings for indictable offences: ... . The government chose not to challenge that decision, but rather proceeded to change the bail system by replacing police officers with Crown prosecutors.")

Police Powers

Voir également: Ancillary Powers Doctrine

Police are empowered by common law and statutory powers to execute their duties.

Common Law Powers

Police have a number of powers vested by the common law that are related to their duties.[1]

Statutory Powers

Various provincial legislation empowers police to detain, arrest, search and seize. This includes:

  • Liquor and Cannabis Control legislation[2]
  • Motor Vehicle legislation
  • Mental Health legislation[3]
  • Protection of Property legislation[4]
Topics

Authority by Police Type

Voir également: Peace Officers

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is the national police force.[5] They are peace officers for all jurisidctions in Canada.[6]

RCMP peace officers have "primary investigative jurisdiction concerning crimes committed in relation to national security or designated protected persons or designated protected sites."[7]

  1. ↑ See Ancillary Powers Doctrine
  2. ↑ NS: Liquor Control Act, [1]
    ON: Liquor Licence Act
  3. ↑ ON: Mental Health Act
    NS: Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment Act
  4. ↑ ON: Trespass to Property Act
  5. ↑ Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (RCMPA), R.S.C., 1985, c. R-10, s. 3
  6. ↑ s. 3 and 11.1 RCMPA
  7. ↑ R c Seguin, 2016 ONCJ 441 (CanLII), par Letourneau J, au para 50
    Security Offences Act, RSC 1985, c S-7 at s. 2 and 6

Prise de notes

Obligation de prendre des notes contemporaines

La prise de notes au cours d'une enquête ne constitue pas simplement un « aide-mémoire ». Ils ont l'obligation de prendre des notes.[1] Cependant, cette obligation ne s'étend pas à « enregistrer tout » que l'agent a fait ou vu dans son carnet.[2]

Il est important pour le processus judiciaire d'établissement des faits que les faits importants soient enregistrés et ne soient pas laissés au « caprice de la mémoire ».[3]

Les notes de police ne sont plus simplement un aide-mémoire servant simplement à rafraîchir la mémoire d'un policier. Les agents ont le « devoir inhérent » de prendre des notes.[4]

Sans notes, la crédibilité d'un officier peut être diminuée et son témoignage peut être ignoré.[5]

Les notes de police doivent être indépendantes et contemporaines.[6] Ceci est essentiel à la fiabilité et à l’intégrité des notes de l’agent.[7] Les notes sont uniquement destinées à aider l'officier à témoigner au procès.[8] Sans notes, le témoignage de l'agent peut être « au mieux sommaire » et peu fiable. Il doit y avoir une indication que les notes constituent le souvenir indépendant de l'agent. Un officier ne devrait pas utiliser les notes de quelqu'un d'autre pour se rafraîchir la mémoire, sinon il réciterait simplement des ouï-dire.[9]

As a general rule in an investigation involving multiple officers, notes should not be made after a collective debriefing.[10]

The absence of note taking can go to the reliability of the officer's testimony.[11] Where an officer is experienced they should be in the practice of taking notes of all relevant observations.

An officer is expected to take notes of all significant aspects of their investigation. Proper note taking is an important part of the fact-finding, as evidence should not be left to the whim of memory.[12]

It is not an acceptable excuse to not have notes where the officer "would remember it."[13] Where notes are not taken the court is allowed to conclude that observation evidence was in fact not observed but a belief created after the investigation.[14] This is not necessarily always the case however and the judge may still accept the evidence.[15]

Memory of a police officer for things that occurred a considerably long time in the past where no notes were taken will has diminished reliability.[16]

The effect of an absence of notes will vary from case-to-case.[17]

Inferences from failing to take notes

Failure to take proper notes on observations of impairment allows a judge to find that there were insufficient evidence to form reasonable and probable grounds.[18]

The failure to take notes permits--but does not require--the drawing of the inference that the events testified to did not happen.[19]

What types of inferences can be drawn from the failure to take notes will depend on factors such as:[20]

  • Whether the significance of the event that was not noted would have been apparent at the time the notes were made.
  • Whether notes were made of other similar events.
  • The police officer’s level of experience.
  • The explanation, if any, for why notes were not made.
  • Whether notes of the event were made by other officers involved in the same investigation.
Consequence of Not Making Notes

Where police fail to take contemporaneous notes, their testimony may be considered unreliable and may not be admitted.[21]

Intentional failure to make notes may have negative consequences if it associated with a Charter breach.[22] However, there is no known principle that says that incomplete notes, by themselves, amounts to a breach of an accused right to full answer and defence under s. 7 adn 11(d) of the Charter.[23]

Police should not be seen to thwart the objectives of Stinchcombe by making less accurate notes.[24]

Special Cases For Notes

There are additional constitutional obligations on peace officers to make detailed notes when engaged in the following:

Other:

  1. ↑ Wood v Schaeffer, 2013 SCC 71 (CanLII), SCJ No 71, par Moldaver J, au para 67 ("...police officers do have a duty to prepare accurate, detailed, and comprehensive notes as soon as practicable after an investigation")
  2. ↑ R c Machado, 2010 ONSC 277 (CanLII), 92 MVR (5th) 58, par Durno J at 121
  3. ↑ R c Lozanovski, 2005 ONCJ 112 (CanLII), 64 WCB (2d) 630, par Feldman J, au para 14 ("It is important to the proper functioning of the judicial fact-finding role that significant facts be recorded by police and not left to the whim of memory.")
  4. ↑ R c Odgers, 2009 ONCJ 287 (CanLII), [2009] OJ No 2592, par Fournier J, au para 16
  5. ↑ , ibid., au para 16
  6. ↑ Schaeffer v Wood, 2011 ONCA 716 (CanLII), 107 OR (3d) 721, par Sharpe JA (3:0), aux paras 69 to 70 on appeal to SCC
  7. ↑ , ibid.
  8. ↑ , ibid.
  9. ↑ , ibid.
  10. ↑ R c Thompson, 2013 ONSC 1527 (CanLII), [2013] OJ No 1236 (Sup. Ct.), par Hill J, au para 212 ("[W]here multiple officers participate in investigation of an incident, their notes should be made independently and not as a collective and not after a (de)briefing where the incident is discussed as a group.")
  11. ↑ R c Tang, 2011 ONCJ 525 (CanLII), par Reinhardt J, au para 53 -- police officer evidence entirely ignored due to poor notes
    R c Odgers, 2009 ONCJ 287 (CanLII), OJ No 2592, par Fournier J
    R c Machado, 2010 ONSC 277 (CanLII), 92 MVR (5th) 58, par Durno J at 120-123
  12. ↑ R c Lozanovski, 2005 ONCJ 112 (CanLII), [2005] OCJ 112, par Feldman J, au p. 3
  13. ↑ R c Zack (1999) OJ No 5747 (ONCJ)(*pas de liens CanLII) , au p. 2
    R c Khan, 2006 OJ 2717(*pas de liens CanLII) at 18
  14. ↑ Zack, supra, au p. 2
  15. ↑ e.g. R c Thompson, 2001 CanLII 24186 (ON CA), 151 CCC (3d) 339, par Morden JA (3:0)
    R c Bennett, 2005 OJ No 4035 (ONCJ) (*pas de liens CanLII)
  16. ↑ Khan, supra, at paras 17 to 18
    R c Hayes, 2005 OJ No 5057(*pas de liens CanLII) at 9
    R c McGee, 2012 ONCJ 63 (CanLII), 92 CR (6th) 96, par Grossman J, au para 66
  17. ↑ R c Noureddine, 2014 ONCJ 537 (CanLII), [2014] OJ No 1397 (OCJ), par Selkirk J, aux paras 12 to 17
  18. ↑ R c Bero, 2014 ONCJ 444 (CanLII), par Cooper J
  19. ↑ see Wood v. Schaeffer, supra R c Singh, 2015 ONCJ 643 (CanLII), par Schreck J, au para 34
    R c Antoniak, 2007 CanLII 53233 (ON SC), [2007] O.J. No. 4816, par Garton J, aux paras 21 to 25
    R c Golubentsev, 2007 ONCJ 568 (CanLII), 55 CR (6th) 170, par Duncan J, au para 30
  20. ↑ Singh, supra, au para 34
  21. ↑ R c Tweedly, 2013 BCSC 910 (CanLII), par Greyell J, au para 160 ("it is important to recall it has been held innumerable times in our courts that police testimony, without the advantage of contemporaneous notes, is unreliable and often not admitted into evidence for that purpose.")
    R c Zack, [1999] OJ No 5747 (Ont. C.J.)(*pas de liens CanLII) , au para 6 ("In my view, the absence of the questioned observations in his notebook lead to the conclusion that those observations were not, in fact, made at the time but are perhaps something that over the course of time the officer has come to believe that he saw")
  22. ↑ R c Vu, 2013 SCC 60 (CanLII), [2013] 3 SCR 657, par Cromwell J, au para 70 - Officer intentionally avoided taking notes
  23. ↑ R c Bailey, 2005 ABCA 61 (CanLII), 63 WCB (2d) 614, par Hunt JA, au para 43 to 44
  24. ↑ R c Eagle, [1996] OJ No 2867 (Ont. C.J.)(*pas de liens CanLII) referencing the "Martin Report" ("The statement should emphasize that disclosure requirements after Stinchcombe cannot be thwarted by making less accurate or less comprehensive notes.")
    R c Satkunananthan, 2001 CanLII 24061 (ON CA), 152 CCC (3d) 321, par curiam, au para 78

Information Sharing

Records containing personal information held by the RCMP are governed by s. 8 of the Privacy Act. RCMP are permitted to share personal information under limited circumstances including sharing with:

  • "an investigative body specified in the regulations, on the written request of the body, for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada or a province or carrying out a lawful investigation, if the request specifies the purpose and describes the information to be disclosed;" (s. 8(2)(e))[1]
  1. ↑ s. 8, Privacy Act

Autorisations spéciales

Voir également: Agir avec autorité

Voir également

Autres parties
Récupérée de « https://carnetdroitpenal.ca/fr/index.php?title=Rôle_des_forces_de_l%27ordre&oldid=11746 »