Case Brief: R v.
Shankar Citation: Regina v. Corey Shankar, 2007 ONCA 280 (CanLII) Facts: The accused was driving his car without the required laminated taillights when officers pulled him over late October 2004. The police asked Shankar for his licence, registration, and insurance. The accused handed over a licence in the name of Jason Singh, the insurance information handwritten on an informal yellow sticky note, and a photocopy of the vehicle registration.
When inquired about the spelling of name, Shankar misspelled Singh as ‘Sing’ and gave the wrong unit number for the home address. Based on these wrong answers, officers arrested Shankar on the basis of misleading them; officers physically removed Shankar from the vehicle and searched him. The officers discovered bulletproof vests on Shankar’s person, Shankar justified these on the basis of self defence and protection.
When searching the vehicle police found numerous weapons including two guns, a hunting knife, and ammunition.Shankar did not testify in court, and was charged and convicted of two counts of possession of loaded, prohibited firearms and public mischief. Shankar appealed his conviction to the Ontario Court of Appeal, where the appeal was listened to in March 2007. Consensually, the appeal was dismissed in April of 2007.
Legal Issue: Were the police justified to search Shankar and the vehicle due to their warrantless search? Did the police use excessive force in the physical removal of Shankar from the vehicle?Held: The decision of the court was Shankar was charged and convicted of two counts of possession of loaded, prohibited firearms and public mischief (appealed and dismissed) Ratio Decidendi: The rule of law used to support the judge’s argument were the aggravating factors that surrounded the case including; Shankar’s auto theft, his false information, and impersonation. Shankar also violated the concealed weapons law under Canadian law which states that it is an offence to attain or maintain weapons that are dangerous to the public’s peace or for the purpose of committing a criminal offence.Dissent: The potential dissent although not used by would be that Shankar was previously assaulted and due to this prior case he carried around weapons, another dissent that the judge(s) who did not agree with decision could be that the officers violated Shankar’s rights by physically removing him from the vehicle, followed by the physical search of Shankar.
Conclusion: Shankar was rightfully convicted both times, he broke weapon laws, and his motive is still unclear but it does lead into guilty realm. Shankar seems mentally unstable and should be assessed for illnesses such as schizophrenia and bi polar since his reasoning seems surreal.