R. V. Macdonald Case Study

1024 Words5 Pages
R. v. MacDonald, 2014 SCC 3, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 37 Facts: In the court case R.v Macdonald, Sargent Boyd acted in response to a noise complaint, in Halifax towards the appellant Erin Lee Macdonald. Sgt. Boyd articulated Macdonald to open the door however he opened half-way. He detected Macdonald hiding an object behind his leg and asked him twice what it is however Macdonald didn’t answer. Due to the fact that Macdonald did not answer, Boyd pushed opened the door to get a better look, he then noticed a firearm and barged in and disarmed Macdonald. The firearm was restricted and Macdonald was only allowed to possess it between Calgary and Alberta, but not in Nova Scotia, while he was in Halifax (R v. MacDonald, 2014). At, the court trial, the…show more content…
Macdonald case, while still being processed, has set up an important precedent on safe searches and the interpretation of police powers in Canada. In the end, the court decided that the officer made a reasonable search when he barged in to disarm the suspect. The decision was made because the officer suspected that Macdonald was armed and dangerous to the public. The central theme of this case and analysis is whether the Officer infringed on Macdonald’s rights thus causing harm in regards to Liberal Legalism. We can conclude that the decision made in R v. Macdonald does fit Liberal Legalism but not that perfectly. The officer did infringed Macdonald’s rights, something that the judges acknowledged but it was reasonable and made to prevent harm. The sentencing itself was to make the police power of safe search a more clear form of relationship regulation. The judges’ sentencing and logic was based on precedent and was quite objective and neutral, with no agenda involved. So, the R v. Macdonald case more or less fits with Liberal Legalism because the decision fits on its idea of individual liberty and the harm principle, they made their decision with relationship regulation in mind and everything they did was based on legal reasoning and precedent and thus
Open Document