Overview of the Case:
Michael Feeney was charged with second-degree murder and was held responsible for the murder of Frank Boyle, an 85-year-old in the small northern town of Likely, B.C. On June 8, 1991, at around 8:20 a.m, Frank’s neighbour found him lying on his back in the living room. Frank was hit severely five times with a crowbar. Blood was spattered all over the walls and the house was looted and his money. Also, sportsman cigarettes and beer was missing. Frank’s car; a red Datsun truck was gone too, but it was found later abandoned half a kilometer away and a bloody crowbar near the stolen truck. The police visited Dale Russell, Michael 's brother-in-law and Dale told them that Michael came home around 7 a.m. after drinking all night. The police also interviewed Angela Feeney Russell and she told them her brother had no …show more content…
Feeney case is a landmark case because prior to the case police did not require a warrant to do a search of private property. The decision, in this case, resulted in Parliament to amend section 529.1 of the Canadian Criminal Code to make it clear that to arrest on private property it must comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now, police must exercise their power to enter private houses to arrest a suspect under Feeney warrants. This may or may not give the accused an advantage, because if there is no more evidence to the prove the crime of the guilty, the person can walk free. However, if there is more evidence like in the Feeney case then they will no matter what be punished. This impacts Canadians in a positive and negative way as well; if there is no more evidence for to prove that the accused is guilty then they will be able to walk free and that impacts society very negatively. The person convicted of the crime may do it again and take the life of an innocent person because the court had no evidence. But if there is more evidence, like shown in the Feeney case then the accused will suffer
Michael Feeney was charged with second-degree murder and was held responsible for the murder of Frank Boyle, an 85-year-old in the small northern town of Likely, B.C. On June 8, 1991, at around 8:20 a.m, Frank’s neighbour found him lying on his back in the living room. Frank was hit severely five times with a crowbar. Blood was spattered all over the walls and the house was looted and his money. Also, sportsman cigarettes and beer was missing. Frank’s car; a red Datsun truck was gone too, but it was found later abandoned half a kilometer away and a bloody crowbar near the stolen truck. The police visited Dale Russell, Michael 's brother-in-law and Dale told them that Michael came home around 7 a.m. after drinking all night. The police also interviewed Angela Feeney Russell and she told them her brother had no …show more content…
Feeney case is a landmark case because prior to the case police did not require a warrant to do a search of private property. The decision, in this case, resulted in Parliament to amend section 529.1 of the Canadian Criminal Code to make it clear that to arrest on private property it must comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now, police must exercise their power to enter private houses to arrest a suspect under Feeney warrants. This may or may not give the accused an advantage, because if there is no more evidence to the prove the crime of the guilty, the person can walk free. However, if there is more evidence like in the Feeney case then they will no matter what be punished. This impacts Canadians in a positive and negative way as well; if there is no more evidence for to prove that the accused is guilty then they will be able to walk free and that impacts society very negatively. The person convicted of the crime may do it again and take the life of an innocent person because the court had no evidence. But if there is more evidence, like shown in the Feeney case then the accused will suffer