R v Moses CA254/03

This case involves the admissibility of evidence obtained through a police search and the lawfulness and reasonableness of the search itself. The appellants, Joseph Moses and Kirk Duncan Moon, challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained by the police during a search of their property, which was conducted in accordance with a warrant. The appellants argue that the search was unlawful and unreasonable, and therefore the evidence obtained should be excluded.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the police actions up until the explosion were lawful and reasonable, and whether the police actions after the explosion were lawful and reasonable. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the search warrant authorized the search of the entire property, whether the police trespassed on the property, and whether the police had a lawful and reasonable reason to investigate the explosion.

The court found that the search warrant did not authorize a general search of the entire property, but it did permit a search of the vehicle found on the property. The court also found that the police were trespassing when they went onto the property to inspect the car, but this was not relevant because the police were lawfully in the vicinity of the car when the explosion occurred. The court held that the police actions after the explosion were lawful and reasonable because the police had a duty to investigate the explosion and render assistance to anyone who might have been injured.

The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal itself, finding that the evidence in question was admissible.

The final orders of the court are not explicitly stated in the judgment, but it can be inferred that the appeal was dismissed, and the evidence obtained during the police search remains admissible.