Reasons of the Court
The court held that acts of any Canadian police force performing duties outside of Canada are subject to the Charter.
In this particular case, the court found that there was a violation of the accused's right to counsel and right to silence. These violations were flagrant and the evidence would not have been otherwise been discovered thus rendering the trial unfair. Consequently, the evidence of Mr. Cook's statement was excluded.
Justices L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin dissented, stating that the Charter did not apply, and that the police were working as part of an American investigation and were acting under their authority.
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.
Ernesto Arturo Miranda was an American criminal and laborer whose conviction on kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation was set aside in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned by police. This warning is known as a Miranda warning.
Self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself generally, by making a statement, "to an accusation or charge of crime; to involve oneself or another [person] in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof"..
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.
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 Hebert [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on an accused's right to silence under section seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
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 Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190 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 the right imposed a duty upon the police to provide information and access to a legal aid lawyer if needed. From this case came the term "Brydges Counsel" to refer to legal aid lawyers that assist recently arrested individuals.
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 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).
R v Dersch, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 768 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right against unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that sharing of personal information of patients, such as blood test results, between health care professionals or law enforcement violates section 8 of the Charter and should be excluded 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.
Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.
Fellers v. United States, 540 U.S. 519 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel.
Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in a police interrogation. In a decision written by Justice Stevens, the Court held that once an accused individual has claimed a right to counsel at a plea hearing or other court proceeding, a waiver of that right during later police questioning would be invalid unless the accused individual initiated the communication.
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 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.
