Background
Joseph Strachan was under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for drug related offences. A warrant was obtained under section 10(2) of the Narcotic Control Act to search his apartment. The police arrive at his apartment and found him with two other men, along with a substantial amount of drugs and money. All three men were arrested and read their rights. Upon arrest the officer in charge denied Strachan's attempt to use the phone to contact a lawyer on the basis that he still needed to get "matters under control". The officer later testified at trial that he intended to first question the suspects and find guns that were suspected of being there before he would allow them to call a lawyer. Strachan was finally allowed to contact his lawyer from the police station an hour and forty minutes after the arrest.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the federal and national police force of Canada. The RCMP provides law enforcement at the federal level. It also provides provincial policing in eight of Canada's provinces and local policing on contract basis in the three territories and more than 150 municipalities, 600 aboriginal communities, and three international airports. The RCMP does not provide provincial or municipal policing in Ontario or Quebec.
The Narcotic Control Act, passed in 1961, was one of Canada's national drug control statutes prior to its repeal by the 1996 Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It implemented the provisions of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.
At trial, it was held that Strachan's right to counsel, under section 10(b) of the Charter, was violated, that the evidence must be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and that Strachan be acquitted.
On appeal, it was held that Strachan's right to counsel was violated but the evidence should not be excluded as there was no causal connection between the violation and evidence collected. A new trial was ordered.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether there was a violation of Strachan's right against unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Charter and whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.
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 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated. Some scholars have argued that it was actually section 24 that ensured that the Charter would not have the primary flaw of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights: Namely, Canadian judges would be reassured that they could indeed strike down statutes on the basis that they contradicted a bill of rights.
R v Mann is a 2004 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
R v Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 1987 SCC 11 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 8 and was a leading case on section 24(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 which allowed for the exclusion of evidence upon infringing the Charter. The Collins test for section 24(2) was developed for determining if the administration of justice was brought into disrepute by the inclusion of the evidence. The test was later replaced in R. v. Grant.
R v Stillman [1997] 1 SCR 607, 1997 SCC 32 was a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 24(2) of the Constitution of Canada which allowed for the exclusion of evidence that is obtained in a manner that infringes the Charter. The two-step Stillman test was developed for determining whether the admission of evidence that was obtained through a breach of a Charter right would affect the fairness of the trial. The issue of trial fairness comes into play when applying the first step of the Collins test to exclude evidence under section 24(2).
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 section 235(1) of the Criminal Code, which allowed a police officer to demand a breathalyzer test, violated the accused's right to retain counsel.
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 Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional right to privacy under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
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 Wong, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the evidence obtained by electronic video surveillance conducted without authorization. The Court held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room. This expectation does not depend on whether those persons were engaging in illegal activities. Therefore, individuals can expect that agents of the state will not engage in warrantless video surveillance. Electronic surveillance without authorization violates Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, for this particular case, the Supreme Court held that the police acted in good faith and had reasonable and probable ground to believe criminal activities were committed. The surveillance without authorization was a result of misunderstanding. Hence, acceptance of the surveillance as evidences will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
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.
R v Belnavis, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341, 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 there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the backseat of a car.
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 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.
