R V. Shankar Case Summary
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 …show more content…
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
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 …show more content…
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