R. v. Luong, 2000 ABCA 301
[12] For the assistance of trial judges charged with the onerous task of adjudicating such issues, we offer the following guidance:
1. The onus is upon the person asserting a violation of his or her Charter right to establish that the right as guaranteed by the Charter has been infringed or denied.
2. Section 10(b) imposes both informational and implementational duties on state authorities who arrest or detain a person.
3. The informational duty is to inform the detainee of his or her right to retain and instruct counsel without delay and of the existence and availability of Legal Aid and duty counsel.
4. The implementational duties are two-fold and arise upon the detainee indicating a desire to exercise his or her right to counsel.
5. The first implementational duty is “to provide the detainee with a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right (except in urgent and dangerous circumstances)”. R. v. Bartle (1994), 1994 CanLII 64 (SCC), 92 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (S.C.C.) at 301.
6. The second implementational duty is “to refrain from eliciting evidence from the detainee until he or she has had that reasonable opportunity (again, except in cases of urgency or danger)”. R. v. Bartle, supra, at 301.
7. A trial judge must first determine whether or not, in all of the circumstances, the police provided the detainee with a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right to counsel; the Crown has the burden of establishing that the detainee who invoked the right to counsel was provided with a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right.
8. If the trial judge concludes that the first implementation duty was breached, an infringement is made out.
9. If the trial judge is persuaded that the first implementation duty has been satisfied, only then will the trial judge consider whether the detainee, who has invoked the right to counsel, has been reasonably diligent in exercising it; the detainee has the burden of establishing that he was reasonably diligent in the exercise of his rights. R. v. Smith, (1989), 1989 CanLII 27 (SCC), 50 C.C.C. (3d) 308 (S.C.C.) at 315-16 and 323.
10. If the detainee, who has invoked the right to counsel, is found not to have been reasonably diligent in exercising it, the implementation duties either do not arise in the first place or will be suspended. R. v. Tremblay (1987), 1987 CanLII 28 (SCC), 37 C.C.C. (3d) 565 (S.C.C.) at 568; R. v. Ross (1989), 1989 CanLII 134 (SCC), 46 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (S.C.C.) at 135; R. v. Black (1989), 1989 CanLII 75 (SCC), 50 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) at 13; R. v. Smith, supra, at 314; R. v. Bartle, supra, at 301 and R. v. Prosper (1994), 1994 CanLII 65 (SCC), 92 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (S.C.C.) at 375-381 and 400-401. In such circumstances, no infringement is made out.
11. Once a detainee asserts his or her right to counsel and is duly diligent in exercising it, (having been afforded a reasonable opportunity to exercise it), if the detainee indicates that he or she has changed his or her mind and no longer wants legal advice, the Crown is required to prove a valid waiver of the right to counsel. In such a case, state authorities have an additional informational obligation to “tell the detainee of his or her right to a reasonable opportunity to contact a lawyer and of the obligation on the part of the police during this time not to take any statements or require the detainee to participate in any potentially incriminating process until he or she has had that reasonable opportunity” (sometimes referred to as a “Prosper warning”). R. v. Prosper, supra, at 378-79. Absent such a warning, an infringement is made out.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire