Dire à un suspect interrogé que de décider s'il fait ou non est sa prérogative et non celle de son avocat n'enfreint pas la garantie constitutionnelle prévue à l'article 10 b) de la Charte

R. v. Mujku, 2011 ONCA 64

Lien vers la décision

[36]         The police tread on dangerous ground when they comment on the legal advice tendered to detainees. In our view, however, the trial judge did not err in finding that the impugned comment made by the police officer did not violate, or undermine to the point of breach, Chak’s s.10(b) right to counsel. It was open to the trial judge to find that the police officer simply made the point that it was up to Chak, not his lawyer, to decide whether or not to make a statement. The circumstances here are distinguishable from R. v. Burlingham, 1995 CanLII 88 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206, at para. 14, where the court held that “s.10(b) specifically prohibits the police, as they did in this case, from belittling an accused's lawyer with the express goal or effect of undermining the accused's confidence in and relationship with defence counsel.” We see no basis upon which to interfere with the trial judge’s finding that the comments of the police officer in this case did not rise to that level.