The Right to Counsel: The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth

Suzanne Costom,

Shadley Battista, s.e.n.c

November 22, 2011Une pensée d’avance – Think Ahead

INTRODUCTION

• It’s just not like in the movies.

Sources

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 10 (b):

Everyone has the right on arrest or detention:

(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;

(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and

(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

Link between 10(a) and (b) – R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138 at para 24.

The reason for the right

Trial fairness:• Clarkson v. The Queen, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383 at para 17

Information and the relationship with other constitutionally protected rights• R v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233 at para 23• R. v. Whittle, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 914 at 29

Free Choice• R. v. Willier, [2010 ] 2 S.C.R. 429 at paras 26 et seq. • R. v. Bartle, [1994] 3 S.C.R 173 at para 16• R. Whittle, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 914 at 30

The content of the right to counsel

Informational

Implementational

Informational

Availability of Legal Aid and Duty Counsel:• R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; R. v. Bartle, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173

Change of Circumstances• R. v. Black [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138 at 152-53; R. v. Evans, [2004] 3

S.C.R. 59

Language• R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59 at para 21 [re: s. 10(a)]• R. v.Evans, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869

Timing – arrest or detention• R. v. Suberu, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 460 at paras 37 et seq.• R. v. Grant, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353.

Implementational

Provide a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right to counsel

• R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233 at para 21.

• R v. Willier, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 429

Refrain from eliciting evidence (“hold off”) until the arrested or detained person has had a “reasonable opportunity” to exercise the right

• R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233 at para 23.

• R. v. Ross,[1989] 1 S.C.R. 3.

• R. v. Sinclair, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310 at paras 47 et seq.

Privacy

• R. v. Playford (1987), 40 C.C.C. (3d) 142 (Ont C.A.)

IMPLEMENTIONAL (cont)

More than one call

• R. v. Loutit, [1974] M.J. 76 (C.A.)

• R. v. Pavel (1989), 36 O.AC. 328 (C.A.)

Onus on individuals to be “reasonably diligent” in exercising their rights

• R. v. Tremblay,[1987] 2 S.C.R. 435

*Interplay between the Informational and Implementational Components of s. 10(b):

• R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236

• R. v. Sinclair, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310.

Recent Developments on the Implementational Component of the Right to Counsel:

The Sinclair trilogy

R. v. Sinclair, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310

R. v. McCrimmon, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 402

R. v. Willier, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 429

The Truth about The Right to Counsel

Multiple Consultations? • Not usually (Sinclair) • Police tactics? (R. v. Burlingham, [1995] 2 S.C.R.

206)

Counsel of Choice?• Within reason (Willier)

Presence of Counsel• No (Sinclair)

Conclusion – What to Do When The Client Calls

• Speak to the investigator so you know what charges your client is facing and the strength of the evidence.

• Don’t merely recite the right to silence – explain what that means

• Explain the need to be diligent in asserting their rights

• Explain potential interrogation techniques