5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Criminal Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2:III)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Criminal Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2:III) (view source)
Revision as of 20:07, 5 August 2020
, 20:07, 5 August 2020→Admissibility of Statements
| Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
The law relating to the admissibility of statements made by adult accused persons to persons in authority also applies to youths (s 146(1)). There are, however, specific provisions that ensure a young person both understands the consequences of making such a statement and is given the opportunity to seek and/or consult counsel (s 146(2)). The right to counsel may be waived but must be done so either by a signed written statement or a recorded statement (s 146(4) and (5)). A judge may rule inadmissible any statement given by a young person if satisfied that it was given under duress (s 146(7)). Voluntary statements can be admitted into evidence, even where there has been a technical irregularity in complying with a young person’s statutory protection, provided that the Youth Justice Court is satisfied that the admission of the statement would not offend the principle that young persons are entitled to enhanced procedural protection to ensure that they are treated fairly and that their rights are protected (s 146(6)). | The law relating to the admissibility of statements made by adult accused persons to persons in authority also applies to youths (s 146(1)). There are, however, specific provisions that ensure a young person both understands the consequences of making such a statement and is given the opportunity to seek and/or consult counsel (s 146(2)). The right to counsel may be waived but must be done so either by a signed written statement or a recorded statement (s 146(4) and (5)). A judge may rule inadmissible any statement given by a young person if satisfied that it was given under duress (s 146(7)). Voluntary statements can be admitted into evidence, even where there has been a technical irregularity in complying with a young person’s statutory protection, provided that the Youth Justice Court is satisfied that the admission of the statement would not offend the principle that young persons are entitled to enhanced procedural protection to ensure that they are treated fairly and that their rights are protected (s 146(6)). | ||
In ''R v AD'', 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.” 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 AD 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 [http://canlii.ca/t/2dpvh ''R v AD'', 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.” 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 AD 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 LTH'', 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. | The ''YCJA'' does not specify the standard of proof the Crown must meet to show compliance with s 146. In [http://canlii.ca/t/20m8f ''R v LTH'', 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 LTH'', 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 LTH'', 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. | In ''R v LTH'', 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 LTH'', 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. | ||