Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Criminal Law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1:IX)"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Line 52: Line 52:
Issues may arise at trial when an accused gave a statement to the police or provided bodily samples of some sort without being given the opportunity to retain and instruct counsel.  In such cases, defence counsel should seek to have the evidence excluded under section 24(2) of the ''Charter''.   
Issues may arise at trial when an accused gave a statement to the police or provided bodily samples of some sort without being given the opportunity to retain and instruct counsel.  In such cases, defence counsel should seek to have the evidence excluded under section 24(2) of the ''Charter''.   


:'''NOTE:''' ''Brydges'' Line is a province-wide service that is available for arrested persons 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A lawyer is always available to speak to the person for free. . It is available toll-free at 1-800-458-5500.
:'''NOTE:''' ''Brydges'' Line is a province-wide service that is available for arrested persons 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A lawyer is always available to speak to the person for free. It is available toll-free at 1-800-458-5500.


:'''NOTE:''' Detention under sections 9 and 10 of the ''Charter'' refers to a suspension of the individual’s liberty interest by a significant physical or psychological restraint. Psychological detention is established either where the individual has a legal obligation to comply with a restrictive request or demand, or a reasonable person would conclude by reason of the state conduct that they had no choice but to comply. ''See [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc32/2009scc32.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAJciB2IGdyYW50AAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 R v Grant]'', [2009] 2 SCR 353, for more details.
:'''NOTE:''' Detention under sections 9 and 10 of the ''Charter'' refers to a suspension of the individual’s liberty interest by a significant physical or psychological restraint. Psychological detention is established either where the individual has a legal obligation to comply with a restrictive request or demand, or a reasonable person would conclude by reason of the state conduct that they had no choice but to comply. ''See [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc32/2009scc32.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAJciB2IGdyYW50AAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 R v Grant]'', [2009] 2 SCR 353, for more details.
5,109

edits