La fin de l'appel téléphonique en lien avec l'exercice du droit à l'avocat et l'appréciation d'une potentielle interférence des policiers à cet effet

R. v. Jones, 2005 ABCA 289 

Lien vers la décision

[11]           The appellant also suggests that the police officer should have asked him whether he required further time. However, the police officer had not interrupted the appellant nor had he suggested to him that his time was up. On the only evidence, the appellant knocked on the door because he had  terminated his efforts and was ready to proceed to the next step. The police officer reasonably concluded from the appellant’s actions that the appellant had terminated his efforts to try to call his own lawyer. In the circumstances, an inquiry about whether the appellant needed more time would have been redundant. As he knew that the appellant had been unable to reach his own lawyer, the police officer reminded the appellant that he could seek the assistance of legal aid counsel or other counsel. The appellant responded that he did not wish to do so. We do not agree with the suggestion of counsel for the appellant that the police officer’s attempt to provide additional information to the appellant constituted an improper interference with the appellant’s right to consult counsel of his own choice.