R. v. Davie (1981)

Summary

R. v. Davie (1981)

“ Interception of a private communication statement only requires that the originator of the statement reasonably believed he was in communication. Here, Davie believed he was talking to God and it is impossible to say the belief was unreasonable. Davie also had a reasonable expectation that his statement was made in privacy. The interception was made without consent or authorization and was therefore unlawful. There was no need to determine if God was a "person". ”
Source: Wikisource

R. v. Davie (1981)

“ It is sufficient if the statement is a communication in that the originator reasonably believes that he is imparting ideas, knowledge, information, etc., in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is then a "private communication". It cannot have been the intention of Parliament to exclude from the protection of the provisions of the Protection of Privacy Act theists who believe that their private prayers are heard and considered. ”
Source: Wikisource

R. v. Davie (1981)

“ I can only conclude that the accused intended that his God alone hear this prayer, and not the police.
20 The trial judge then found the statement made by the accused to be a "private communication" and inadmissible.
21 In my opinion, the word "person" is used in the statutes of Canada to describe someone to whom rights are granted and upon whom obligations are placed. There is no earthly authority which can grant rights or impose duties upon God.
”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature