R.+v.+Moore

//R. v. Moore//


 * Facts:** The appellant went through an intersection against a red light on his bicycle. A motorcycle policeman, observing the infraction, stopped the appellant and with the intention of giving him a traffic ticket, asked for identification. The appellant refused to give his name and address. As a result, he was charged with unlawfully and willfully obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to s.118 of the Criminal Code.

At trial, the appellant was acquitted. On appeal, he was found guilty.


 * Issue**: Does the appellant’s refusal to provide identification constitute obstruction of a police office?


 * Held:** Yes, the appellant was obstructing the police officer. Appeal dismissed.

· Under the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA), a bicycle does not fall under the definition of “motor-vehicle” or “vehicle”. Therefore, the MVA does not impose upon the appellant a duty to identify himself. The MVA only specifies that operators of vehicles or motor vehicles to be under a duty to identify themselves to a police officer. · However, the police officer was required by the Police Act to carry out policing duties and under s. 450(2) of the Criminal Code had the authority to arrest the accused on a summary conviction offence if it were necessary to establish the accused’s identity. · There is a reciprocal duty on the part of the appellant to provide his name and address to the police officer · There is no interference “with the freedom of a citizen who is seen committing an infraction by a police constable in the police constable’s simply requesting his name and address without any attempt to obtain from that person any admission of fault or any comment whatsoever.” (para 21) · The officer was under a duty to attempt to identify the wrongdoer, and the failure to identify himself by the wrongdoer did constitute an obstruction of the police officer in the performance of his duties
 * Reasoning of majority (delivered by Spence J.):**

· There was no reciprocal or implied duty on the part of the appellant to identify himself to the police officer. · The issue in this case has to do with police power of interrogation and the right of citizens to remain silent. “That right has always been regarded as absolute and as being firmly anchored to two fundamental common law principles: the presumption of innocence and the privilege against self-incrimination.”(para 23) · Concerned that the appellant who committed a minor traffic offence became exposed to a criminal charge of obstruction with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment · “A person is not guilty of the offence of obstructing a police officer merely by doing nothing, unless there is a legal duty to act. Omission to act in a particular way will give rise to criminal liability only where a duty to act arises at common law or is imposed by statute” (para 25) ·  The common law principle: “It seems to me quite clear that though every citizen has a moral duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no legal duty to that effect, and indeed the whole basis of the common law is the right of the individual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority, and a refusal to accompany those in authority to any particular place, short, of course, of arrest.”(para 31) · There is no statutory duty on a cyclist committing a traffic infraction to divulge his name and address · The police officer did have the power to arrest the appellant for the offence of proceeding against the red light as a result of the Police Act, Criminal Code and Summary Convictions Act, but the appellant as a consequence was not guilty of the much more serious offence of obstruction by refusing to provide his name and address · Citizens have a right to remain silent or refrain from assisting the police. However, actively obstructing a police officer, for instance, through telling a false story, citizens do not have the right to do · Refusal to act cannot amount to willful obstruction unless the law imposes an obligation in the circumstances to act in the manner requested by police · There is no reciprocal duty on an alleged wrongdoer to respond to police requests for identification where no legal or statutory duty exists.
 * Dickson J. (Estey J. concurring) (dissenting):**