Background
William Brydges was arrested in Manitoba in relation to a murder in Edmonton. Upon arriving at the police station Brydges was informed of his right to retain and instruct counsel and gave him the opportunity to contact a lawyer. He was put in an interview room and again was given another chance to contact a lawyer. Brydges asked one of the officers if Manitoba had a Legal Aid service. The officer said that he imagined so, to which Brydges replied "won't be able to afford anyone, hey? That's the main thing." The officer asked Brydges if he had a reason to contact a lawyer. Brydges replied "Not right now, no". After some time in interrogation the accused asked for a Legal Aid lawyer. Once he got in touch with one he was advised not to say anything.
At trial, the judge found that Brydges had made a request for a lawyer at the beginning of the questioning, and that the police did not adequately help Brydges in contacting a lawyer when he first asked about Legal Aid. Thus, it was held that the police violated Brydges' right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter, and that the statements he made in the interrogation should be excluded under section 24(2).
On appeal, the Court set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether there was a violation of section 10(b).
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. These rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restricts prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.
The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.
William Brydges was a Canadian man whose arrest for murder resulted in the leading Supreme Court of Canada case R v Brydges on the right of a detainee to access duty counsel. His case was a Canadian precedent, and created significant controversy after the Supreme Court of Canada upheld his acquittal. He was found to have been denied access to an attorney because he was not informed of legal services available to him when he told police he could not afford a lawyer. This case had nationwide ramifications, requiring all police officers to advise a person under arrest of the availability of legal services even if they couldn't afford them.
Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifies rights upon arrest or detention, including the rights to consult a lawyer and the right to habeas corpus. As a part of a broader range of legal rights guaranteed by the Charter, section 10 rights may be limited by the Oakes test and/or the notwithstanding clause. However, section 10 has also spawned considerable litigation, and has made an impact in numerous cases.
R v Feeney, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right, under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms against unreasonable search and seizure. The Court held that the police are not permitted to enter into someone's house without a search warrant.
Right to counsel means a defendant has a right to have the assistance of counsel and, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, requires that the government appoint one or pay the defendant's legal expenses. The right to counsel is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial. Historically, however, not all countries have always recognized the right to counsel. The right is often included in national constitutions. Of the 194 constitutions currently in force, 153 have language to this effect.
R v Manninen [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on an accused Charter right to retain and instruct a lawyer as well as the right to silence.
R v Therens [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613 is an early Supreme Court of Canada decision on an accused's right to retain and instruct counsel without delay under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that when a person was detained for the purpose of giving a breath sample under section 235(1) of the Criminal Code, they have the right to consult counsel. Since the police did not allow the accused to do so, they violated the accused's right to retain counsel. The Court ruled that the evidence was properly excluded.
R v Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms subsequent to a violation of a Charter right. The Court held that there does not need to be a causal connection between the violation and the evidence, but rather there need only be a temporal link between the two.
R v Bartle, [1994] 3 SCR 173 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to retain and instruct counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that a police officer is required to hold off on his or her investigation upon arresting an individual until the detainee has been informed of his or her rights and given sufficient information and access to contact a private lawyer or duty counsel. The case applied the earlier Supreme Court of Canada decision R v Brydges. The judgment was released with three other decisions: R v Pozniak, R v Harper, R v Matheson and R v Prosper.
R v Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to duty counsel upon arrest or detainment by police under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that merely reading the accused his or her rights is insufficient to discharge the right to counsel; the police must also provide the accused with access to legal aid or duty counsel.
R v Burlingham, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206 is a leading decision on the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).
Clarkson v R, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to retain and instruct counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that in order for an accused to waive their right to retain and instruct counsel they must be clear and unequivocal, and the accused must be aware of the consequences of the waiver.
R v Latimer, [1997] 1 SCR 217, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the controversial case of Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer convicted of murdering his disabled daughter Tracy. The case involved consideration of arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and rights to an explanation for detention and rights to counsel under section 10. The Supreme Court ultimately overturned Latimer's conviction due to the Crown's improper actions at the jury selection stage. As a result, the decision was the first given by the Supreme Court in the Latimer case, the second being R v Latimer on cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Charter.
R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10 and section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the Charter. The Court also created a new test for determining whether evidence obtained by a Charter breach should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, replacing the Collins test.
R v M (MR), [1998] 3 SCR 393 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on search and seizure by teachers and principals in Canadian schools. In this case, a student's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were not violated by being searched by a school principal with a police constable present.
R v Sinclair2010 SCC 35 is a leading case from the Supreme Court of Canada on a detainee's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
R v Cook, [1998] 2 SCR 597, is a leading Charter decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court held that Canadian police located in the United States were still subject to the Charter when interrogating a suspect for a murder in Canada.
Wood v Schaeffer is a significant ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning procedural requirements involving incidents arising from police misconduct.
