5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Criminal Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2:III)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Criminal Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2:III) (view source)
Revision as of 19:51, 29 August 2016
, 19:51, 29 August 2016→Admissibility of Statements
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
In ''R v. A.D.'', 2010 BCSC 1715,the statement of the 15-year-old accused was found inadmissible for non-compliance with s. 146(2)(d) of the ''YCJA''. In that case, Justice Stromberg-Stein notes that “[i]nforming a young person they are ''entitled'' to have a lawyer or third party with whom they have consulted present, rather than phrasing this as a ''requirement'', is ‘deficient’ and ‘not completely accurate’, as s. 146 draws an important distinction between the rights of the young person and the requirements placed upon the police.”'''1''' In that case, counsel for the accused was out of town and unable to immediately come to the police station where the accused was detained. Although the police informed A.D. of his right to have his lawyer present during the interview, it was clear that they were going to interview him that same day, regardless of his lawyer’s availability. | In ''R v. A.D.'', 2010 BCSC 1715,the statement of the 15-year-old accused was found inadmissible for non-compliance with s. 146(2)(d) of the ''YCJA''. In that case, Justice Stromberg-Stein notes that “[i]nforming a young person they are ''entitled'' to have a lawyer or third party with whom they have consulted present, rather than phrasing this as a ''requirement'', is ‘deficient’ and ‘not completely accurate’, as s. 146 draws an important distinction between the rights of the young person and the requirements placed upon the police.”'''1''' In that case, counsel for the accused was out of town and unable to immediately come to the police station where the accused was detained. Although the police informed A.D. of his right to have his lawyer present during the interview, it was clear that they were going to interview him that same day, regardless of his lawyer’s availability. | ||
The ''YCJA'' does not specify the standard of proof the Crown must meet to show compliance with s. 146. In ''R. v. L.T.H.'', 2008 SCC 49,the Supreme Court of Canada stated each component of s. 146 must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If a young person has been interviewed, Crown must prove the person taking the young person’s statement took reasonable steps to ensure the young person understood her or his rights. | The ''YCJA'' does not specify the standard of proof the Crown must meet to show compliance with s. 146. In ''R. v. L.T.H.'', 2008 SCC 49 at paragraph 6,the Supreme Court of Canada stated each component of s. 146 must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If a young person has been interviewed, Crown must prove the person taking the young person’s statement took reasonable steps to ensure the young person understood her or his rights. Simply reading a standardized form will likely not fulfill the caution requirement of s. 146(2)(b). The person in authority must make reasonable efforts to determine the level of comprehension of the specific young person to ensure their explanation is appropriate. | ||
In ''R. v L.T.H.'', the majority of the Court found the police officer, when reading the accused his rights, failed to take into account that the accused had a learning disability, and as a result found the statement inadmissible. In ''R. v. L.T.H.'', the Court also notes that Crown Counsel does not have to prove the young person actually understood the rights explained to them. If the judge is satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the young person’s rights and options were explained as required by s. 146, the judge may infer the young person understood those rights and the consequences of waiving them. The burden then shifts to the defence to point to evidence showing the young person did not in fact understand his or her rights or the consequences of waiving those rights.'''3''' | In ''R. v L.T.H.'', the majority of the Court found the police officer, when reading the accused his rights, failed to take into account that the accused had a learning disability, and as a result found the statement inadmissible. In ''R. v. L.T.H.'', the Court also notes that Crown Counsel does not have to prove the young person actually understood the rights explained to them. If the judge is satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the young person’s rights and options were explained as required by s. 146, the judge may infer the young person understood those rights and the consequences of waiving them. The burden then shifts to the defence to point to evidence showing the young person did not in fact understand his or her rights or the consequences of waiving those rights.'''3''' | ||
