Informational Component to Right to Counsel: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
The right to counsel can only be properly realized where the accused is given an opportunity to fully understand the jeopardy that they are in and appreciate the consequences of the decision to speak to counsel. Thus, they must be informed of the offence as part of the informational component.<Ref> | The right to counsel can only be properly realized where the accused is given an opportunity to fully understand the jeopardy that they are in and appreciate the consequences of the decision to speak to counsel. Thus, they must be informed of the offence as part of the informational component.<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 O'Donnell, [http://canlii.ca/t/1nn30 1991 CanLII 2695] (NB C.A.)<br> | R v O'Donnell, [http://canlii.ca/t/1nn30 1991 CanLII 2695] (NB C.A.){{perNBCA|Angers JA}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
'''Legal Aid'''<Br> | '''Legal Aid'''<Br> | ||
The police must also inform the accused of the availability of duty counsel and legal aid.<ref> | The police must also inform the accused of the availability of duty counsel and legal aid.<ref> | ||
R v Brydges, [1990] 1 SCR 190 [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft0k 1990 CanLII 123]<br> | R v Brydges, [1990] 1 SCR 190 [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft0k 1990 CanLII 123] (SCC){{perSCC|Lamer J}}<br> | ||
R v Luong, [http://canlii.ca/t/5s01 2000 ABCA 31] (CanLII)</ref> | R v Luong, [http://canlii.ca/t/5s01 2000 ABCA 31] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}}</ref> | ||
The police must provide details on accessing 24 hours duty counsel phone by giving a toll-free number to call.<ref> | The police must provide details on accessing 24 hours duty counsel phone by giving a toll-free number to call.<ref> | ||
R v Bartle, [1994] 3 SCR 173, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frrg 1994 CanLII 64]<br> | R v Bartle, [1994] 3 SCR 173, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frrg 1994 CanLII 64] (SCC){{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}<br> | ||
R v Pozniak, [1994] 3 SCR 310, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frpb 1994 CanLII 66]<br> | R v Pozniak, [1994] 3 SCR 310, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frpb 1994 CanLII 66] (SCC){{perSCC| Lamer CJ}}<br> | ||
R v Cobham, [1994] 3 SCR 360, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frpj 1994 CanLII 69]<br> | R v Cobham, [1994] 3 SCR 360, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frpj 1994 CanLII 69] (SCC){{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}<br> | ||
R v Matheson, [1994] 3 SCR 328, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frpd 1994 CanLII 67]<br> | R v Matheson, [1994] 3 SCR 328, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frpd 1994 CanLII 67] (SCC){{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The failure to provide a specific telephone number to Legal Aid is fatal to the fulfillment of the right.<ref>R v Deabreu, [http://canlii.ca/t/6k9j 1994 CanLII 1186] (ON C.A.)</ref> | The failure to provide a specific telephone number to Legal Aid is fatal to the fulfillment of the right.<ref>R v Deabreu, [http://canlii.ca/t/6k9j 1994 CanLII 1186] (ON C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}}</ref> | ||
'''Burden of Proof'''<Br> | '''Burden of Proof'''<Br> | ||
Absent proof of circumstances showing that the accused did not understand his right to counsel when he was informed of it, then the onus is on the detainee to prove that he was denied an opportunity to ask for counsel at the time of detention.<ref> R v Baig, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftkm 1987 CanLII 40] (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 537</ref> | Absent proof of circumstances showing that the accused did not understand his right to counsel when he was informed of it, then the onus is on the detainee to prove that he was denied an opportunity to ask for counsel at the time of detention.<ref> R v Baig, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftkm 1987 CanLII 40] (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 537{{TheCourtSCC}}</ref> | ||
'''Choice of Counsel'''<br> | '''Choice of Counsel'''<br> | ||
There is a right to an opportunity to contact counsel of choice.<ref> | There is a right to an opportunity to contact counsel of choice.<ref> | ||
R v Kowalchuk, [http://canlii.ca/t/1l9wd 1999 CanLII 12437] (SK QB)<br> | R v Kowalchuk, [http://canlii.ca/t/1l9wd 1999 CanLII 12437] (SK QB){{perSKQB|Matheson J}}<br> | ||
R v Keagan, [http://canlii.ca/t/5c7b 2003 NLSCTD 48] (CanLII)<br> | R v Keagan, [http://canlii.ca/t/5c7b 2003 NLSCTD 48] (CanLII){{perNLSC|Fowler J}}<br> | ||
R v Top, [http://canlii.ca/t/2dmvz 1989 ABCA 98 ]<br> | R v Top, [http://canlii.ca/t/2dmvz 1989 ABCA 98]{{perABCA|Cote JA}}<br> | ||
R v Nelson, [http://canlii.ca/t/1d944 1991 CanLII 1446] (BC CA)<br> | R v Nelson, [http://canlii.ca/t/1d944 1991 CanLII 1446] (BC CA){{perBCCA|MacFarlane JA}}<br> | ||
R v Tremblay, [1987] 2 SCR 435 [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftm3 1987 CanLII 28]<br> | R v Tremblay, [1987] 2 SCR 435 [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftm3 1987 CanLII 28]{{perSCC|Lamer J}}<br> | ||
R v Playford, [http://canlii.ca/t/1npn5 1987 CanLII 125] (ON CA)<br> | R v Playford, [http://canlii.ca/t/1npn5 1987 CanLII 125] (ON CA){{perONCA|Goodman JA}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
'''Consequence of Invoking the Right'''<br> | '''Consequence of Invoking the Right'''<br> | ||
The police have an obligation to hold off from questioning while the accused is given reasonable opportunity to contact a lawyer.<ref> | The police have an obligation to hold off from questioning while the accused is given reasonable opportunity to contact a lawyer.<ref> | ||
R v Cutknife, [http://canlii.ca/t/5mzk 2000 ABQB 641] (CanLII)<br> | R v Cutknife, [http://canlii.ca/t/5mzk 2000 ABQB 641] (CanLII){{perABQB|Marceau J}}<br> | ||
R v Russell, [http://canlii.ca/t/59dl 2000 NBCA 53] (CanLII)<br> | R v Russell, [http://canlii.ca/t/59dl 2000 NBCA 53] (CanLII){{perNBCA|Deschênes JA}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
===When Detainee Changes Their Mind (Prosper Warning)=== | ===When Detainee Changes Their Mind (Prosper Warning)=== | ||
If a detainee changes their mind after initially expressing a desire to access counsel and then changes their mind about counsel after being "diligent but unsuccessful", the police have an obligation to to "inform the detainee of his or her right to a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel".<ref> | If a detainee changes their mind after initially expressing a desire to access counsel and then changes their mind about counsel after being "diligent but unsuccessful", the police have an obligation to to "inform the detainee of his or her right to a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel".<ref> | ||
R v Willier, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjv 2010 SCC 37] (CanLII) ("[W]hen a detainee, diligent but unsuccessful in contacting counsel, changes his or her mind and decides not to pursue contact with a lawyer, s. 10(b) mandates that the police explicitly inform the detainee of his or her right to a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel and of the police obligation to hold off in their questioning until then.")<br> | R v Willier, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjv 2010 SCC 37] (CanLII){{perSCC| McLachlin CJ and Charron J}} ("[W]hen a detainee, diligent but unsuccessful in contacting counsel, changes his or her mind and decides not to pursue contact with a lawyer, s. 10(b) mandates that the police explicitly inform the detainee of his or her right to a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel and of the police obligation to hold off in their questioning until then.")<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The police also have an obligation to hold off on questioning until after they have informed the detainee of this additional right.<ref> | The police also have an obligation to hold off on questioning until after they have informed the detainee of this additional right.<ref> | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
===Other Consequences=== | ===Other Consequences=== | ||
Police are not obliged to notify the detainee that the access to counsel will occur at the police station.<ref> | Police are not obliged to notify the detainee that the access to counsel will occur at the police station.<ref> | ||
R v Devries, [http://canlii.ca/t/ | R v Devries, [http://canlii.ca/t/23xd7 2009 ONCA 477] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The instructions asking whether they want to speak to counsel "now" does not oblige on-site access to counsel.<ref> | The instructions asking whether they want to speak to counsel "now" does not oblige on-site access to counsel.<ref> | ||
Devries</ref> | Devries{{ibid}}</ref> | ||
It does not necessarily result in a breach if the officer fails to re-advise the detainee of the right to counsel once they are at the station. However, it is generally preferable that officers do so.<ref> | It does not necessarily result in a breach if the officer fails to re-advise the detainee of the right to counsel once they are at the station. However, it is generally preferable that officers do so.<ref> | ||
Devries</ref> | Devries{{ibid}}</ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
{{quotation| | {{quotation| | ||
I am arresting you for [name of offence(s)]. | I am arresting you for [name of offence(s)]. | ||
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
Revision as of 23:47, 28 November 2018
General Principles
The right to counsel can only be properly realized where the accused is given an opportunity to fully understand the jeopardy that they are in and appreciate the consequences of the decision to speak to counsel. Thus, they must be informed of the offence as part of the informational component.[1]
The informational duty requires the officer to inform the detainee of his right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.
Legal Aid
The police must also inform the accused of the availability of duty counsel and legal aid.[2]
The police must provide details on accessing 24 hours duty counsel phone by giving a toll-free number to call.[3]
The failure to provide a specific telephone number to Legal Aid is fatal to the fulfillment of the right.[4]
Burden of Proof
Absent proof of circumstances showing that the accused did not understand his right to counsel when he was informed of it, then the onus is on the detainee to prove that he was denied an opportunity to ask for counsel at the time of detention.[5]
Choice of Counsel
There is a right to an opportunity to contact counsel of choice.[6]
If the accused asks for a specific lawyer but that lawyer is not available, then they are expected to choose someone else.
Consequence of Invoking the Right
The police have an obligation to hold off from questioning while the accused is given reasonable opportunity to contact a lawyer.[7]
- ↑
R v Black, 1989 CanLII 75 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 138, per Wilson J
R v O'Donnell, 1991 CanLII 2695 (NB C.A.), per Angers JA
- ↑
R v Brydges, [1990] 1 SCR 190 1990 CanLII 123 (SCC), per Lamer J
R v Luong, 2000 ABCA 31 (CanLII), per curiam - ↑
R v Bartle, [1994] 3 SCR 173, 1994 CanLII 64 (SCC), per Lamer CJ
R v Pozniak, [1994] 3 SCR 310, 1994 CanLII 66 (SCC), per Lamer CJ
R v Cobham, [1994] 3 SCR 360, 1994 CanLII 69 (SCC), per Lamer CJ
R v Matheson, [1994] 3 SCR 328, 1994 CanLII 67 (SCC), per Lamer CJ
- ↑ R v Deabreu, 1994 CanLII 1186 (ON C.A.), per curiam
- ↑ R v Baig, 1987 CanLII 40 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 537, per curiam
- ↑
R v Kowalchuk, 1999 CanLII 12437 (SK QB), per Matheson J
R v Keagan, 2003 NLSCTD 48 (CanLII), per Fowler J
R v Top, 1989 ABCA 98, per Cote JA
R v Nelson, 1991 CanLII 1446 (BC CA), per MacFarlane JA
R v Tremblay, [1987] 2 SCR 435 1987 CanLII 28, per Lamer J
R v Playford, 1987 CanLII 125 (ON CA), per Goodman JA
- ↑
R v Cutknife, 2000 ABQB 641 (CanLII), per Marceau J
R v Russell, 2000 NBCA 53 (CanLII), per Deschênes JA
Secondary Caution
When Detainee Changes Their Mind (Prosper Warning)
If a detainee changes their mind after initially expressing a desire to access counsel and then changes their mind about counsel after being "diligent but unsuccessful", the police have an obligation to to "inform the detainee of his or her right to a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel".[1] The police also have an obligation to hold off on questioning until after they have informed the detainee of this additional right.[2]
- ↑
R v Willier, 2010 SCC 37 (CanLII), per McLachlin CJ and Charron J ("[W]hen a detainee, diligent but unsuccessful in contacting counsel, changes his or her mind and decides not to pursue contact with a lawyer, s. 10(b) mandates that the police explicitly inform the detainee of his or her right to a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel and of the police obligation to hold off in their questioning until then.")
- ↑ Prosper, ibid.
Other Consequences
Police are not obliged to notify the detainee that the access to counsel will occur at the police station.[1]
The instructions asking whether they want to speak to counsel "now" does not oblige on-site access to counsel.[2]
It does not necessarily result in a breach if the officer fails to re-advise the detainee of the right to counsel once they are at the station. However, it is generally preferable that officers do so.[3]
- ↑ R v Devries, 2009 ONCA 477 (CanLII), per Doherty JA
- ↑ Devries, ibid.
- ↑ Devries, ibid.
Procedure
Typically, the officer will read from a script such as this:
I am arresting you for [name of offence(s)].
You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. You also have the right to free and immediate legal advice from duty counsel by making free telephone calls to [toll-free phone number(s)] during business hours and [toll-free phone number(s)] during non-business hours.
Do you understand?
Do you wish to call a lawyer?
You also have the right to apply for legal assistance through the provincial legal aid program.
Do you understand?