The accused was charged with possessing child porn. The Court threw out this child porn largely because it felt that getting a warrant is as easy as getting coffee from “Tims” these days and that the child porn in this case was probably very low end in the “graphic” department.

24(2) is really about the kind of evidence seized. If it is personal use “blow” that is picked up during a warrantless search, then it is more than likely gonna get tossed out. If its enough C4 to lay waste to downtown Toronto found in the possession of suspected Al Quaeda boys then of course the evidence will be allowed owing to the exigency of the situation.

Guns fall closer to my latter example simply because you are dealing with (in Toronto post about 2000) a serious problem where harm is more imminent than normal. Ie. If you don’t convict the gunman today, when you eventually do pick him up, it would be after he’s shot and likely killed someone.

“The administration of justice into disrepute” … disrepute with who? The general public. Throw out a bit of personal use drugs and quash the case, no one balks. Throw out barretta and a gangbanger walks, then folks stop believing in Canadian criminal justice.

In approaching 24(2) you have to ask the question, would dismissing the evidence and thus dismissing the case on a technicality in this instance cause “Joe Canadian” to loose faith in our criminal justice system or will it not? Canadians do respect Section 8 of the Charter but are willing to apply Oakes (Section 1) to save evidence of a substantial nature (especially if it constitutes a threat to public safety) when said evidence has not been obtained properly to the letter of the law.