Section 10: Rights on Arrest
R. v. Mian, 2014 SCC 54
The accused, Mohammad Hassan Mian, was arrested for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, but not informed of the reason for his detention for 22 minutes, and not informed of his right to retain and instruct counsel for approximately 25 minutes. After cross-examining a number of police officers, defence counsel argued that police had violated Sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Continue reading
R. v. Taylor, 2014 SCC 50
The accused, Jamie Kenneth Taylor, was arrested and taken to hospital after crashing his vehicle and injuring three of his passengers. Police suspected that Mr. Taylor was intoxicated but did not advise him of his right to retain and instruct counsel. While Mr. Taylor was at the hospital (in police custody), blood samples were taken to him. Continue reading
R. v. Nagle, 2012 BCCA 373
The BC Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal of Jennifer Nicole Nagle on a charge of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, ruling that travelers leaving Canada can be searched in much the same way as travelers entering Canada. Continue reading
R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 33
A police constable deployed to a retail store to investigate the reported use of a stolen credit card witnessed Musibau Suberu leaving the store as he arrived. As Mr. Suberu got into his vehicle, the constable approached him, saying: “Wait a minute. I need to talk to you before you go anywhere.” After a brief exchange, the constable received a radio communication from his colleagues, providing a vehicle description and license plate number which matched the vehicle in which Mr. Suebru was sitting. A search of the vehicle yielded stolen merchandise and resulted in Mr. Suberu being charged with fraud. Continue reading
R. v. Feeney, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13
In R. v. Feeney, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Michael Feeney’s conviction for second degree murder on the basis that the police had unlawfully entered his home without a warrant, and obtained evidence from him without informing him of his right to counsel. Continue reading
R. v. Bartle, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173
R. v. Bartle established a positive duty on the part of police officers to provide detained persons with an opportunity to exercise their right to retain and instruct counsel. In this case, police officers informed Mr. Bartle of his right to counsel when they took him into custody for suspected impaired driving, but failed to advise him of a toll-free number that he could call to speak with a duty counsel lawyer. Continue reading