Right to Additional Opportunities to Consult with Counsel: Difference between revisions
m 1 revision imported |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
{{seealso|Implementation Component to Right to Counsel}} | {{seealso|Implementation Component to Right to Counsel}} | ||
Generally, once a detainee has finished exercising their right to counsel they have no further ability to access counsel again.<ref> | Generally, once a detainee has finished exercising their right to counsel they have no further ability to access counsel again.<ref> | ||
R v Sinclair, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjs 2010 SCC 35] (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310 | R v Sinclair, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjs 2010 SCC 35] (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310{{perSCC|McLachlin CJ and Charron J}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The right to counsel is "essentially a one time matter", unless it falls into one of the exceptions.<ref> | The right to counsel is "essentially a one time matter", unless it falls into one of the exceptions.<ref> | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Absent one of the exceptions, further access to counsel beyond the first consultation is entirely discretionary.<ref> | Absent one of the exceptions, further access to counsel beyond the first consultation is entirely discretionary.<ref> | ||
R v Briscoe [http://canlii.ca/t/fqc7j 2012 ABQB 111] (CanLII) at para 113<br> | R v Briscoe [http://canlii.ca/t/fqc7j 2012 ABQB 111] (CanLII){{perABQB|Yamauchi J}} at para 113<br> | ||
</ref> This applies even where the police may have promised further access.<ref>Briscoe{{ibid}} at para 114, 119</ref> | </ref> This applies even where the police may have promised further access.<ref>Briscoe{{ibid}} at para 114, 119</ref> | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
===Exceptions=== | ===Exceptions=== | ||
Several exceptions exist:<ref> | Several exceptions exist:<ref> | ||
R v Sinclair, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjs 2010 SCC 35] (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310 | R v Sinclair, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjs 2010 SCC 35] (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310{{perSCC|McLachlin CJ and Charron J}}, at para 2<br> | ||
R v MacLean, [http://canlii.ca/t/fw13j 2013 ABQB 60] (CanLII) at para 24<Br> | R v MacLean, [http://canlii.ca/t/fw13j 2013 ABQB 60] (CanLII){{perABQB| Ouellette J}} at para 24<Br> | ||
R v M(AR), [http://canlii.ca/t/gh18d 2011 ABCA 98] (CanLII) at para 38 leave denied<br> | R v M(AR), [http://canlii.ca/t/gh18d 2011 ABCA 98] (CanLII){{TheCourt}} at para 38 leave denied<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
* Where during the investigation "new or non-routine procedures involving the detainee" are being applied, the accused should be permitted counsel.<ref> | * Where during the investigation "new or non-routine procedures involving the detainee" are being applied, the accused should be permitted counsel.<ref> | ||
Sinclair{{supra}} at paras 50-52<br> | Sinclair{{supra}} at paras 50-52<br> | ||
R v Ross, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft8b 1989 CanLII 134] (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 3 | R v Ross, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft8b 1989 CanLII 134] (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 3{{perSCC|Lamer J}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
* where the jeopardy increases due to new evidence rendering the offence more serious or new, more serious charges arise.<ref> | * where the jeopardy increases due to new evidence rendering the offence more serious or new, more serious charges arise.<ref> | ||
Sinclair{{supra}} at paras 50-52<br> | Sinclair{{supra}} at paras 50-52<br> | ||
See R v Evans, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsml 1991 CanLII 98] (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 869 | See R v Evans, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsml 1991 CanLII 98] (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 869{{jperSCC|McLachlin J}} | ||
R v Black, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft50 1989 CanLII 75] (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 138 | R v Black, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft50 1989 CanLII 75] (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 138{{perSCC|Wilson J}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
* if it is learned that the previous waiver of rights was not done properly.<ref> | * if it is learned that the previous waiver of rights was not done properly.<ref> | ||
See R v Burlingham, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frk6 1995 CanLII 88] (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 206 | See R v Burlingham, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frk6 1995 CanLII 88] (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 206{{perSCC| Iacobucci J}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
* the previous caution was insufficient or defective | * the previous caution was insufficient or defective | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
==Procedure== | ==Procedure== | ||
Where new or non-routine procedures involving the detainee arise, the detainee should be permitted new access to counsel.<ref> | Where new or non-routine procedures involving the detainee arise, the detainee should be permitted new access to counsel.<ref> | ||
R v | R v ARM, [http://canlii.ca/t/gh18d 2011 ABCA 98] (CanLII){{TheCourt}}<Br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The applicable procedures will not be those that are part of "predictable police questioning".<ref> | The applicable procedures will not be those that are part of "predictable police questioning".<ref> | ||
R v Briscoe, [http://canlii.ca/t/gfv1v 2015 ABCA 2] (CanLII) at para 48<Br> | R v Briscoe, [http://canlii.ca/t/gfv1v 2015 ABCA 2] (CanLII){{perABCA|Watson JA}} at para 48<Br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
"Non-routine" procedures will include participation in a line-up or submitting to a polygraph.<ref> | "Non-routine" procedures will include participation in a line-up or submitting to a polygraph.<ref> | ||
R v Sinclair, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjs 2010 SCC 35] (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310 at para 50<br> | R v Sinclair, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjs 2010 SCC 35] (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310{{perSCC|McLachlin CJ and Charron J}} at para 50<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
A "re-enactment" is not considered a non-routine procedure. It is merely a "statement by conduct".<Ref> | A "re-enactment" is not considered a non-routine procedure. It is merely a "statement by conduct".<Ref> | ||
R v Ashmore, [http://canlii.ca/t/2fdf7 2011 BCCA 18] (CanLII)<br> | R v Ashmore, [http://canlii.ca/t/2fdf7 2011 BCCA 18] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Frankel JA}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
==Change of Jeopardy== | ==Change of Jeopardy== | ||
While a detainee is in custody on charges and has received access to counsel, but at some point later the circumstances of the detainment change and further charges are being investigated resulting in a change in jeopardy in the detainee, the accused must be given a further opportunity to consult with counsel on the new situation.<Ref> | While a detainee is in custody on charges and has received access to counsel, but at some point later the circumstances of the detainment change and further charges are being investigated resulting in a change in jeopardy in the detainee, the accused must be given a further opportunity to consult with counsel on the new situation.<Ref> | ||
R v Black, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft50 1989 CanLII 75] (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 138<br> | R v Black, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft50 1989 CanLII 75] (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 138{{perSCC|Wilson J}}<br> | ||
R v Sinclair, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjs 2010 SCC 35] (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310<br> | R v Sinclair, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjs 2010 SCC 35] (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310{{perSCC|McLachlin CJ and Charron J}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
A change in circumstances "must be objectively observable in order to trigger additional implementational duties for the police".<ref> | A change in circumstances "must be objectively observable in order to trigger additional implementational duties for the police".<ref> | ||
Sinclair<br> | Sinclair{{ibid}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The change in circumstances must suggest "that the choice faced by the accused has been significantly altered" requiring advice in order to fill the purposes of the charter right.<ref>Sinclair<br> | The change in circumstances must suggest "that the choice faced by the accused has been significantly altered" requiring advice in order to fill the purposes of the charter right.<ref>Sinclair{{ibid}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
There will only be a breach when "it becomes clear, as a result of changed circumstances or new developments, that the initial advice, viewed contextually, is no longer sufficient or correct".<ref> | There will only be a breach when "it becomes clear, as a result of changed circumstances or new developments, that the initial advice, viewed contextually, is no longer sufficient or correct".<ref> | ||
Sinclair<br> | Sinclair{{ibid}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Where a person was given access to counsel on arrest, a laying of the charge on the offence for which he was arrested is not a change of circumstances.<ref> | Where a person was given access to counsel on arrest, a laying of the charge on the offence for which he was arrested is not a change of circumstances.<ref> | ||
R v Bhander, [http://canlii.ca/t/ftnc4 2012 BCCA 441] (CanLII) at para 40 to 46</ref> | R v Bhander, [http://canlii.ca/t/ftnc4 2012 BCCA 441] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Saunders JA}} at para 40 to 46</ref> | ||
Police may assume that the initial legal advice received was sufficient and correct in relation to how the detainee should exercise his rights in the context of the police investigation.<ref>Sinclair<br> | Police may assume that the initial legal advice received was sufficient and correct in relation to how the detainee should exercise his rights in the context of the police investigation.<ref>Sinclair{{ibid}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
Revision as of 18:35, 25 November 2018
General Principles
Generally, once a detainee has finished exercising their right to counsel they have no further ability to access counsel again.[1] The right to counsel is "essentially a one time matter", unless it falls into one of the exceptions.[2]
Absent one of the exceptions, further access to counsel beyond the first consultation is entirely discretionary.[3] This applies even where the police may have promised further access.[4]
- ↑
R v Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35 (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310, per McLachlin CJ and Charron J
- ↑ Sinclair, ibid. at para 64
- ↑
R v Briscoe 2012 ABQB 111 (CanLII), per Yamauchi J at para 113
- ↑ Briscoe, ibid. at para 114, 119
Exceptions
Several exceptions exist:[1]
- Where during the investigation "new or non-routine procedures involving the detainee" are being applied, the accused should be permitted counsel.[2]
- where the jeopardy increases due to new evidence rendering the offence more serious or new, more serious charges arise.[3]
- if it is learned that the previous waiver of rights was not done properly.[4]
- the previous caution was insufficient or defective
- "change in circumstances results from new procedures involving the detainee"
- "developments in the investigation" such that they accuse must chose "whether they should ... cooperate with the investigation or not"
The categories of circumstances that require additional access to counsel is not a "closed" list.[5]
Change in Circumstances Exception
The detainee will get an additional chance to consult with counsel where there had been a "change in circumstances" that are objectively observable that renders access "necessary to fulfill s. 10(b)’s purpose of providing the detainee with advice in the new or emergent situation".[6]
- ↑
R v Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35 (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310, per McLachlin CJ and Charron J, at para 2
R v MacLean, 2013 ABQB 60 (CanLII), per Ouellette J at para 24
R v M(AR), 2011 ABCA 98 (CanLII), per curiam at para 38 leave denied
- ↑
Sinclair, supra at paras 50-52
R v Ross, 1989 CanLII 134 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 3, per Lamer J - ↑
Sinclair, supra at paras 50-52
See R v Evans, 1991 CanLII 98 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 869Template:JperSCC R v Black, 1989 CanLII 75 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 138, per Wilson J - ↑ See R v Burlingham, 1995 CanLII 88 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 206, per Iacobucci J
- ↑ Sinclair, supra
- ↑
Sinclair, supra at para 54
Procedure
Where new or non-routine procedures involving the detainee arise, the detainee should be permitted new access to counsel.[1]
The applicable procedures will not be those that are part of "predictable police questioning".[2]
The procedure will arise where the detainee's participation is "essential" and they have a right to decline participation or a right to understand the procedure.[3]
"Non-routine" procedures will include participation in a line-up or submitting to a polygraph.[4]
A "re-enactment" is not considered a non-routine procedure. It is merely a "statement by conduct".[5]
- ↑
R v ARM, 2011 ABCA 98 (CanLII), per curiam
- ↑
R v Briscoe, 2015 ABCA 2 (CanLII), per Watson JA at para 48
- ↑
Biscoe, ibid. at para 48
- ↑
R v Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35 (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310, per McLachlin CJ and Charron J at para 50
- ↑
R v Ashmore, 2011 BCCA 18 (CanLII), per Frankel JA
Change of Jeopardy
While a detainee is in custody on charges and has received access to counsel, but at some point later the circumstances of the detainment change and further charges are being investigated resulting in a change in jeopardy in the detainee, the accused must be given a further opportunity to consult with counsel on the new situation.[1]
A change in circumstances "must be objectively observable in order to trigger additional implementational duties for the police".[2] The change in circumstances must suggest "that the choice faced by the accused has been significantly altered" requiring advice in order to fill the purposes of the charter right.[3]
There will only be a breach when "it becomes clear, as a result of changed circumstances or new developments, that the initial advice, viewed contextually, is no longer sufficient or correct".[4]
Where a person was given access to counsel on arrest, a laying of the charge on the offence for which he was arrested is not a change of circumstances.[5]
Police may assume that the initial legal advice received was sufficient and correct in relation to how the detainee should exercise his rights in the context of the police investigation.[6]
- ↑
R v Black, 1989 CanLII 75 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 138, per Wilson J
R v Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35 (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310, per McLachlin CJ and Charron J
- ↑
Sinclair, ibid.
- ↑ Sinclair, ibid.
- ↑
Sinclair, ibid.
- ↑ R v Bhander, 2012 BCCA 441 (CanLII), per Saunders JA at para 40 to 46
- ↑ Sinclair, ibid.