R v Rodgers

R v Rodgers, 2006 SCC 15, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 554, is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the collection of blood samples from prisoners. The Court upheld the Criminal Code provision allowing for retroactive DNA samples of prisoners without notice.

R v Rodgers
Hearing: November 15, 2005
Judgment: April 27, 2006
Full case nameHer Majesty The Queen v Dennis Rodgers
Citations2006 SCC 15, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 554
RulingCrown appeal allowed
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron
Reasons given
MajorityCharron J., joined by McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Abella JJ.
DissentFish J., joined by Binnie and Deschamps JJ.

Background

Dennis Rodgers was a convicted sex offender who was serving his sentence in an Ontario prison. Since Rodgers was sentenced before the enactment of the 1998 DNA Identification Act, his blood sample was not taken upon sentencing to be placed in the national database. Under the section 487.055(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, the Crown applied for an ex parte application for the DNA sample. Rodgers challenged the application on the basis that the enabling Code provision violated the rights within Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Opinion of the Court

In a four to three decision the Court upheld the Code provisions. Justice Charron, writing for the majority found that the state's interest in his personal information was sufficient to outweigh Rodger's right to privacy. She noted that the DNA sample is akin to a finger print and will only be used for identification purposes. She also found that the provision is procedurally fair and was a clear articulation of the legislature's intent.

gollark: Or maybe some the people concerned about this are just vaguely transphobic, who knows.
gollark: I assume it's mostly just because it's a more recent issue, and possibly because it's smaller in scope and easier to deal with one than the others.
gollark: That works as a fully general counterargument for literally every problem except the worst one(s) that exist at some time.
gollark: I'm not sure how "some subgroup may end up able to shift the balance of sports rather a lot" is the same problem as "there exist many stupid people in America".
gollark: That seems like just another variation on the "other problems exist, so ignore this potential one" argument.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.