I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. S. 146 OF THE YCJA 1 III. PRINCIPLES EMERGING FROM R. V. L.T.H. 3 A. BURDEN OF PROOF 4
|
|
- Lily Price
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. S. 146 OF THE YCJA 1 III. PRINCIPLES EMERGING FROM R. V. L.T.H. 3 A. BURDEN OF PROOF 4 B. 146(2)(b): A CLEAR EXPLANATION IN APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE 4 C. 146(4): WAIVER 5 D. STANDARD OF REVIEW 6 E. GENERAL PRINCIPLES 6 IV. OTHER ISSUES ARISING UNDER S A. S. 146(5): TECHNICAL IRREGULARITY 7 B. WAVIER AND FULL EXTENT OF JEOPARDY 8 C. TIMING OF WAIVER 8 D. FACILITATING RIGHTS TO COUNSEL OR PARENT 9 E. CONTINUATION OF STATEMENTS 10 F. 146(2): REASONABLE GROUNDS 11 G. S. 146(2): PERSON IN AUTHORITY 12 H. 146(3): SPONTANEOUS UTTERANCES 12 I. USE TO BE MADE OF STATEMENT NOT A FACTOR 15 J. ADAPTATION OF COMMON LAW 15 K. QUALITY OF VIDEO 15 V. RELATED PROVISIONS OF THE YCJA 15 VI. CONCLUSION 17
2 TABLE OF CASES R. v. B.(S.M.), 2005 CarswellAlta 1772 (Alta. Q.B.) R. v. C.G., 1986 CarswellOnt 1556 (Prov. Ct. (Fam. Div.)) R. v. C.L.M., 200 SKQB 118 R. v. C.(M.), 2006 CarswellAlta 115 (Alta. Prov. Ct.) R. v. C.R.M., 1997 QBCA 37 (Sask. Q.B.) R. v. D.P.W SKPC 54 R. v. D.P.W SKPC 95 R. v. F.(E.), 2006 CarswellOnt 3741 (Ont. C.J.) R. v. F.N., 2008 CarswellOnt 3499 (Ont. C.J.) R. v. G.(V.), 2007 CarswellAlta 451 (Alta. P.C.) R. v. J.(J.T.), 1990 CarswellMan 220 (SCC) R. v. L.(K.) 2005 CarswellOnt 3284 (Ont. C.J.) R. v. L.T.H., 2008 SCC 49 R. v. N.(Y.), 2005 CarswellOnt 9151 (Ont. C.J.) R. v. S.(J.), 2008 CarswellOnt 5888 (Ont. S.C.J.) R. v. S.(S.), 2007 CarswellOnt 4152 (Ont. C.A.) R. v. T.(D.D.), 2008 CarswellAlta 887 (Alta. Q.B.) R. v. W.(J.), 1996 CarswellOnt 3149 (Ont. C.A.) R. v. W.(M.B.), 2006 CarswellAlta 635 (Alta. Prov. Ct.) R. v. W.(T.), 2005 CarswellOnt 3002 (Ont. C.J.) R. v. Young, 2008 SKQB 82 R. v. Z.(V.), 2004 CarswellOnt 1242 (Ont. C.J.)
3 Admissibility of Statements under s. 146 of the YCJA I. INTRODUCTION 1. An informal poll of Saskatchewan Legal Aid lawyers makes it abundantly clear that if you are dealing with a youth in criminal court, in the vast majority of cases you will also be dealing with a statement that the youth has given to the police. The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. L.T.H. makes this an opportune time to review the law in respect of admissibility of statements made by young people under the YCJA. In this paper I will provide an overview of the Supreme Court decision and canvas other aspects of s. 146 of the YCJA that the courts have considered. II. S. 146 OF THE YCJA 2. The starting point for an analysis of the admissibility of a young person s statement against him or her is s. 146 of the YCJA. S. 146 is a fairly long section. It covers a lot of ground with respect to youth statements and is worth a couple of reads. With my apologies to the trees, I will set it out here: 146. (1) Subject to this section, the law relating to the admissibility of statements made by persons accused of committing offences applies in respect of young persons. (2) No oral or written statement made by a young person who is less than eighteen years old, to a peace officer or to any other person who is, in law, a person in authority, on the arrest or detention of the young person or in circumstances where the peace officer or other person has reasonable grounds for believing that the young person has committed an offence is admissible against the young person unless (a) the statement was voluntary; (b) the person to whom the statement was made has, before the statement was made, clearly explained to the young person, in language appropriate to his or her age and understanding, that (i) the young person is under no obligation to make a statement, (ii) any statement made by the young person may be used as evidence in proceedings against him or her, (iii) the young person has the right to consult counsel and a parent or other person in accordance with paragraph (c), and (iv) any statement made by the young person is required to be made in the presence of counsel and any other person consulted in accordance with paragraph (c), if any, unless the young person desires otherwise;
4 - 2 - (c) the young person has, before the statement was made, been given a reasonable opportunity to consult (i) with counsel, and (ii) with a parent or, in the absence of a parent, an adult relative or, in the absence of a parent and an adult relative, any other appropriate adult chosen by the young person, as long as that person is not a co-accused, or under investigation, in respect of the same offence; and (d) if the young person consults a person in accordance with paragraph (c), the young person has been given a reasonable opportunity to make the statement in the presence of that person. (3) The requirements set out in paragraphs (2)(b) to (d) do not apply in respect of oral statements if they are made spontaneously by the young person to a peace officer or other person in authority before that person has had a reasonable opportunity to comply with those requirements. (4) A young person may waive the rights under paragraph (2)(c) or (d) but any such waiver (a) must be recorded on video tape or audio tape; or (b) must be in writing and contain a statement signed by the young person that he or she has been informed of the right being waived. (5) When a waiver of rights under paragraph (2)(c) or (d) is not made in accordance with subsection (4) owing to a technical irregularity, the youth justice court may determine that the waiver is valid if it is satisfied that the young person was informed of his or her rights, and voluntarily waived them. (6) When there has been a technical irregularity in complying with paragraphs (2)(b) to (d), the youth justice court may admit into evidence a statement referred to in subsection (2), if satisfied that the admission of the statement would not bring into disrepute the principle that young persons are entitled to enhanced procedural protection to ensure that they are treated fairly and their rights are protected. (7) A youth justice court judge may rule inadmissible in any proceedings under this Act a statement made by the young person in respect of whom the proceedings are taken if the young person satisfies the judge that the statement was made under duress imposed by any person who is not, in law, a person in authority. (8) A youth justice court judge may in any proceedings under this Act rule admissible any statement or waiver by a young person if, at the time of the making of the statement or waiver, (a) the young person held himself or herself to be eighteen years old or older; (b) the person to whom the statement or waiver was made conducted reasonable inquiries as to the age of the young person and had reasonable grounds for believing that the young person was eighteen years old or older; and (c) in all other circumstances the statement or waiver would otherwise be admissible. (9) For the purpose of this section, a person consulted under paragraph (2)(c) is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, deemed not to be a person in authority.
5 This provision is virtually identical to s. 56 of the Young Offenders Act. The differences are that s. 146 specifies that it only applies to statements made by young people who are less than eighteen years old; s. 146(4)(a) permits a waiver to be recorded on audio tape, not just on video tape or in writing; and s. 146 has added the provision in 146(5) and (6) that a judge may admit statements notwithstanding technical irregularities in the application of s III. PRINCIPLES EMERGING FROM R. V. L.T.H. 4. R. v. L.T.H. is the leading Supreme Court case on the admissibility of youth statements. In that case, L.T.H. gave a statement to police after having his rights read to him from a form. He answered yes when asked if he understood his rights. He did not want to call a lawyer and answered no when asked if he wanted to consult with an adult or have an adult present. L.T.H. signed and initialled the waiver of rights. The statement, including the waiver was videotaped. 5. The trial judge found that the statement was voluntary but she excluded the statement on the basis that the Crown had not proved L.T.H. understood his rights or the consequences of waiving them beyond a reasonable doubt. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ordered a new trial on the basis that the waiver only had to be proved on a balance of probabilities. 6. Justice Fish wrote the judgment of the 4-3 majority. He considered the burden of proof, the requirement of a clear explanation, waiver, and the standard of review. In doing so, he reiterated some important principles with respect to procedural fairness vis a vis young people. A. BURDEN OF PROOF 7. In L.T.H., the Supreme Court of Canada held that just as the Crown is required to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, it is also required to prove compliance with s. 146 beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the Crown is arguing that a young person waived one of his or her rights, valid waiver must also be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
6 The court noted that s. 146 is a statutory expression [of] common law rules and constitutional rights that apply to adults and to young persons alike. (para 2) It also sets out additional requirements that must be satisfied in order for statements made by young persons to be admissible against them at their trials. (para 3.) 9. Thus the common law cases regarding voluntariness and operating mind with respect to all statements apply equally to statements made by young people. In addition to the common law requirements for admissibility, compliance with s. 146 is a distinct requirement of admissibility. Even where voluntariness has been established beyond a reasonable doubt...the statement must be excluded where the youth has not had his or her rights clearly explained in appropriate language or where waiver has not been established. (para. 63) 10. Fish J. underscored the notion that the voluntariness requirement of the confessions rule is linked not only to reliability, but also to respect for an individual s freedom of will. (para 37) This was a factor in requiring the same burden of proof for compliance with s B. 146(2)(b): A CLEAR EXPLANATION IN APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE 11. In L.T.H., the question arose whether the Crown had to prove not only that the explanation of the accused s rights was done clearly, but in fact that the accused understood the explanation. The Supreme Court stopped short of requiring proof of understanding but placed a duty on the question to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the young detainee to be questioned is capable of understanding the explanation of the rights being given. (para 22) 12. The Court adopted the summary of reasonable efforts set out in R. v. C.G., 1986 CarswellOnt 1556 which stipulated that persons in authority taking statements must learn something about the language and vocabulary skills, faculties of understanding educational level and emotional state of the child. These efforts can generally be achieved by speaking with the child. 13. The Supreme Court held that having the young person explain back his or her understanding of the rights is not a requirement but could well serve to show that the young person s rights were understood. Simply reading a standardized form without more will not usually satisfy the requirements of s. 146.
7 In R. v. L.(K.), the Ontario Court of Justice considered whether officers had done the At the very least, the uniformed officers should have had K.L-T. articulate his understanding of his rights to determine if further clarification was necessary. (para 225) In R. v. F. (N.), the Ontario Court of Justice described an approach asking the accused to explain back her understanding as commendable. (para 18) It would seem that although having a young person explain is not an official requirement, it may well be a practical one. C. 146(4): WAIVER 15. In L.T.H., the Supreme Court reiterated that the standard for waiver of the right to counsel is very high. (para 41). An important part of assessing the validity of the waiver is an understanding of the rights involved and the consequences of giving them up. (para 40). A clear and unequivocal waiver is thus essential, but not sufficient: it must be accompanied by a proper understanding of the purpose the right was meant to serve and an appreciation of the consequences of declining its protection. (para 43) 16. It appears that although the test for a clear explanation under 146(2)(b) is objective, for a waiver to be valid, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the young person subjectively understood his or her rights and the consequences of waiving them. Where a trial judge is not satisfied that the young person understood his or her right to consult counsel and a parent and to have those people present during the statement, or, is not satisfied that the young person appreciated the consequences of waiving those rights, the statement should not be admitted. (para 46). 17. Arguably, it should now be difficult for the Crown to argue that the young person understood the consequences of waiving his or her rights. Short of the police officer saying if you talk I could charge you, if you don t you can go free and nothing will happen to you it seems unlikely that the Crown would be able to meet this burden. Unfortunately Justice Fish goes on to considerably undercut this high standard by adding that if the trial judge is satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the rights and options of the young person were in fact explained in the manner required by s. 146, a presumption will arise that the young person in fact understood those rights and the effect of waiving them. (para 48, emphasis in original)
8 - 6 - D. STANDARD OF REVIEW 18. While not a central feature of the judgment, it is important to note that the Supreme Court held that the same deferential standard of review applies to an analysis of s. 146 as to a finding of voluntariness, as both are essentially findings of fact. [A] finding of voluntariness should only be overturned for some palpable and overriding error which affected [the trial judge s] assessment of the facts...the same is true for findings made pursuant to s (para 55, emphasis in the original) E. GENERAL PRINCIPLES 19. In a continuing effort to see young people treated more fairly by the criminal justice system, the Supreme Court once again reviewed some of the general principles that are to apply with respect to young people and procedural fairness. They are as follows: a. [P]rocedural and evidentiary safeguards available to adults do not adequately protect young persons, who are presumed on account of their age and relative unsophistication to be more vulnerable than adults to suggestion, pressure and influence in the hands of police interrogators. (para 3) b. young persons generally do not understand their legal rights as well as adults, are less likely to assert those rights in the face of a confrontation with a person in authority and are more susceptible to the pressures of interrogation. (para 24) c. No matter what the bravado and braggadocio that young people may display, it is unlikely that they will appreciate their legal rights in a general sense or the consequences of oral statements made to persons in authority. (para 33, citing R. v. J. (J.T.)) d. young persons should not lightly be found to have relinquished this enhanced level of protection they were found by Parliament to require.
9 - 7 - IV. OTHER ISSUES ARISING UNDER S. 146 A. S. 146(5) & (6): TECHNICAL IRREGULARITY 20. So far it appears that courts have been limiting the saving provisions of ss. 146(5) and (6) to true technical irregularities and not situations where the substantive failure by the authorities was arguably minor. In R. v. S.(S.), the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the exclusion of a statement in part because the officer had told the S.S. he had the right to have a parent or lawyer present rather than telling the young person a parent or lawyer had to be present unless S.S. didn t want them there. The Court held that there was an important difference between a right and a requirement, and that since S.S. was deprived of a substantial informational component, the breach could not be considered a technical irregularity. 21. In R. v. Z.(V.), the Ontario Court of Justice held that the officer advising the youth that his statement could be used in evidence rather than in evidence against him was not a technical irregularity. The court referred to two experienced police officers pitted against a 15-year-old youth. Given this obvious mismatch of experience and personal resources, the court was not convinced that the officers had complied with their obligation to explain the provisions in a way that would have been clearly understood by the accused. (para 25) 22. The Ontario Court of Justice also considered technical irregularity in R. v. N.(Y.) and R. v. F.(E.). In those cases the breaches were more numerous and significant and the Court again declined to sweep them aside as technical irregularities. B. WAIVER AND FULL EXTENT OF JEOPARDY 23. Two cases from the Ontario Court of Justice have considered the common law requirement that in order for there to be a valid waiver of a right an accused person must understand his or her jeopardy with respect to young people. In R. v. L.(K.) the court held that the police must make sure that the young person understands clearly what he is being investigated for so that he can make a fully informed decision about
10 - 8 - all of his rights and whether to waive them. Where there is a change in jeopardy, the police are obliged to advise the young person of that fact and apprise him of his rights again. If a waiver has already been obtained, the police must go over the waiver again in light of the new charges. (para 202) 24. R. v. F.(E.), the Court held that for an accused to be made aware of the possible consequences of a waiver, he or she must be informed of the possibility of an adult sentence if the offences under investigation give rise to that possibility. (para 75) C. TIMING OF WAIVER 25. If an accused youth wishes to speak to an adult relative or lawyer, that must be done before he or she waives the right to have such a person present. It was impossible for K.L.-T. to make an informed decision about option 4 at the time he signed the Waiver Form, since he had not yet consulted with either a lawyer or his foster mother at that point. The police had a duty to revisit that option with K.L.-T. after he consulted with both Duty Counsel and his foster mother. (R. v. L.(K.) para 186) D. FACILITATING RIGHTS TO COUNSEL OR PARENT 26. The failure of the police to tell an accused youth how and when they would give effect to his initial choice to have a lawyer present was a factor in the Alberta Court of Queen s Bench finding that a waiver was not valid. (R. v. B.(S.M.) para 115) 27. In R. v. D.P.W., 2008 SKPC 95, the Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that where a young person was wavering on whether or not to call a lawyer, merely repeating the right to counsel was not sufficient for the officer to discharge his duty. Rather, the accused should have been given as much available information and time, alone as appropriate to come to a decision as to whom or whether a lawyer should be contacted. (para 24) Further, the police officer should have provided the accused with a list of counsel and the yellow pages. 28. This case was decided with reference to s. 10(b) of the Charter, however it would seem that the principles are equally applicable to s. 146.
11 In R. v. C.L.M., the Saskatchewan Court of Queen s Bench excluded a statement given by the young accused after police had tried unsuccessfully to contact her mother. After several attempts to contact a family member, the police officers told the accused they could reach anyone and said it was her choice to talk to them then or later. The young person then gave a statement. 30. The court held that compliance with s. 52 of the YOA had to be considered objectively. It is not sufficient that the police in good faith believe that their efforts constitute reasonable compliance. (para 3) The court noted that although the young person began speaking with police, she at no point waived her right to consult an adult or to have an adult present. E. CONTINUATION OF STATEMENTS 31. A caution will generally need to be repeated where a statement is continued from one setting to another either at a different time, in a different place or with a different officer. In R. v. J.(J.T.) the Supreme Court held that [t]here can be no question that if the police wished by their continued questioning to obtain a statement from J.T.J., then he should have been advised once again of his right to have either his cousin or lawyer present. 32. In R. v. W. (M.B.), the young person was held overnight. She was given her rights by one officer, and the next day a different officer spoke with her without repeating her rights. The Alberta Provincial Court excluded the statement, finding there is a clear and unambiguous requirement in s. 146 that the rights have to be given by the person to whom the statement is made. 33. The Court went on to reject the Crown s argument that the questioning, 14 hours later, was a continuation of the first interview. 34. In R. v. T.(D.D.), the Alberta Court of Queen s Bench noted that the issue of continuation is fact specific. Where there is a significant break, change of venue, or change of interrogator, the subcomponent interviews will almost always be treated as a new statements, each requiring a separate caution and waiver. (para 81) In that case however, the court found that the break in the interview was short and explainable, the
12 location and the interrogator remain the same, and there is a logical tie between the two subcomponent interviews. The rights and cautions did therefore not have to be repeated. (paras 81-82). 35. R. v. W.(T.), considered a slightly different set of circumstances. In that case a police officer spoke with the accused without properly informing him of his rights, then proceeded to get the same statement on video, with a proper caution. The Ontario Court of Justice did not accept the argument that the statements were separate. It held that [t]he two statements cannot be separated but must be treated as one continuous statement made before s. 146 was properly complied with. (para 37) The court held that to hold otherwise would render s. 146 meaningless. F. 146(2): REASONABLE GROUNDS 36. The Ontario Court of Justice considered the phrase reasonable grounds in R. v. F.(E.). In that case the police were aware that E.F. was present at a fight on the street in which a man was stabbed in the back. The court noted that the YCJA refers to reasonable grounds and not reasonable and probable grounds and that some cases treat the phrases interchangeably. The Court went on to consider the vast body of common law in relation to reasonable and probable grounds and other similar phrases. 37. The Court held that because of the enhanced procedural protections provided to young people, [p]olice officers who interview young persons must liberally construe s. 146 (including whether they have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed). (para 49, emphasis in original). 38. In that case the Court held that even though the officer didn t have reasonable grounds to charge E.F. with the stabbing, he was aware that E.F. was chargeable at the very least on the offence of causing a disturbance by fighting. E.F. was therefore entitled to be given his rights under s In R. v. T.(D.D.), the young person was arrested for shoplifting and while detained advised she was a witness to a homicide. She was later implicated in the homicide and the Crown sought to have her statement admitted.
13 The Alberta Court of Queen s Bench held that young persons that hold themselves out to be witnesses should be treated as witnesses until a) a young person is arrested or detained for the specific investigation that is being investigated, or b) that reasonable grounds exist to believe the young person is involved in the offence being investigated. (para 50) The court emphasized that the ruling was restricted to the facts of that case. G. S. 146(2): PERSON IN AUTHORITY 41. The Saskatchewan Court of Queen s Bench considered who is a person in authority in R. v. Young. In that case a teacher confronted the accused about his driving, which she had witnessed earlier. The court reviewed the case law on person in authority and determined that while a teacher can be a person in authority, in this case she was not. 42. Part of the problem in that case was that the unrepresented young person did not raise any concerns about the statement with the court and no evidence was called as to whether or not the young person subjectively felt the teacher to be a person in authority. (para 12) H. 146(3): SPONTANEOUS UTTERANCES 43. A number of cases have considered the exception provided in 146(3) for spontaneous statements. In R. v. W. (J.), the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the predecessor section in the YOA. In that case, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that an external stimulus need not be a question or directive from a person in authority. The mere presence of that authority in certain circumstances could be considered a stimulus giving rise to an unnatural response or reaction. (para 8) 44. In that case, the court excluded a comment blurted out by a 14 year old when two uniformed policemen drove up to him in a patrol car a 2 a.m. in an industrial neighbourhood. 45. In R. v. D.P.W., 2008 SKPC 54, the Saskatchewan Provincial Court identified W.(J.) as the bench mark authority on spontaneous utterances.(para 7) In that case the accused made a comment in response to an officer confronting him with evidence that he had been involved in a hit and run.
14 The court held that whether the evidence had been put to D.P.W. as a statement or whether the officer had directly asked D.P.W. about his involvement was moot. Even if the officer s version were to have been proven, it would still be in the Court s view an external stimulus. (para 11) 47. The court held that since the utterance was made after D.P.W. was confronted by a scenario, [t]he utterances that ensued in the circumstances could not be said to be proceeding or acting entirely from natural impulse and therefore could not be construed as spontaneous. (para 11) 48. The court further stated that the officer, when faced with the accused s youthful appearance and given the youth s driver s licence, should have turned his mind to the young person s age and cautioned him appropriately. 49. In R. v. C.R.M., the Saskatchewan Court of Queen s Bench similarly excluded a statement made by a young person. In that case the police pulled the young person over, smelled alcohol, and asked the young person if he had been drinking. The young person said yes, which then formed the reasonable grounds for a roadside screening device. 50. The court reviewed the provisions of s. 56 of the YOA and held that [t]he application of these sections admit of no exception. Because the statement was made in response to a question before the police officer had given the young person his rights, s. 56 was not complied with and the statement was excluded. 51. In R. v. G.(V.), the Alberta Provincial Court considered the purpose of the exception. The Judge held that The exception can not be based on the concept of fairness because a statement does not become more informed or less naive just because it is spontaneous. (para 12) 52. The court concluded that the exception made sense only when a statement is so reliable or free of external influences from authority that the probative value of the statement...overcomes the objective of fairness that s. 146 enshrines. (para 14) For that reason, [s]ince the exception assumes that the youth is stripped of the protections otherwise intended, the onus on the Crown must surely be high to establish an absence of influence, (para 15)
15 In that case, the accused made a statement taking blame for everything after she and her boyfriend had been arrested at gunpoint. The court considered the reliability of the statement in light of the young person s expressed feelings for her boyfriend. 54. The court also considered the fact that the comment had come in response to an unrelated question from the officer, as she was giving the young person her rights. The officer had not made a note of exactly what was said. The court was concerned that the officer made no note of the statement in question nor of the surrounding circumstances at the time. I do not disbelieve the officer but the precise words or actions that may have precipitated the accused s statement are critical in this inquiry and the officer is left, after the fact, to reconstruct from memory. (para 31) 55. In R. v. N.(Y.), and R. v. L.(K.) the Ontario Court of Justice went the other way. In N.(Y.), four officers went to the young persons home to arrest him. The young person answered the door. His mother was in the house holding an infant and was described as screaming at the young person. The officer told the young person what he was under arrest for and the young person replied that he stole the credit card but didn t do the home invasion. In that case the court held that since the statement was not in response to a question, it was a spontaneous utterance. 56. In L.(K.), the accused was arrested at gunpoint, read his rights in the police cruiser, and after being in the police cruiser for a few minutes and saying nothing the accused made a comment. The court admitted the statement, finding that the arrest at gunpoint was unrelated, there was no atmosphere of oppression in the police cruiser and the fact that the officer didn t write down the exact comment went to reliability, not admissibility. The Crown conceded that the accused s response to the officer s follow up question was inadmissible. 57. In R. v. S.(J.), the Ontario Court of Justice refused to admit statements as spontaneous where the accused had been held in custody for over 24 hours at the time he made them. If the police have adequate time to advise a young person of his or her rights but fail to do so, and the young person then makes a spontaneous utterance, the police cannot rely on s. 146(3) to avoid the consequences of their failure to comply with the section. (para 44)
16 I. USE TO BE MADE OF STATEMENT NOT A FACTOR 58. The fact that the Crown is seeking to introduce the statement only for the purpose of cross-examination does not change the test for admissibility. (R. v. F.(N.), R. v. S.(J.)). 59. In R. v. F.(E.) the Ontario Court of Justice held that a statement that does not comply with s. 146 cannot be admitted as part of the actus reus of an offence, i.e. obstruction of justice. (para 106) J. ADAPTATION OF COMMON LAW 60. So far it does not appear that the common law with respect to statements is applied differently to young people. In R.v. F.(E.) the Ontario Court of Justice held that [i]t is unnecessary to expand the intended definition of operating mind beyond capacity issues in order to protect young persons. (para 103) 61. However, in R.v. C.(M.), the Alberta Provincial Court suggests that lying is less acceptable when the police are interrogating a young person. K. QUALITY OF VIDEO 62. In R. v. L.(K.) the court considered a video recording with a few inaudible portions and found that it was a reliable enough record to be assessed in relation to s In future cases, however, poor audibility issues may well affect the admissibility of statements where the Court cannot be satisfied as to what was said by either party. (para 92) V. RELATED PROVISIONS OF THE YCJA 63. When considering the admissibility of youth statements, the application of s. 146 of the YCJA must be considered with the declaration of principle in mind. Section 3 of the YCJA provides as follows:
17 (1) The following principles apply in this Act:... (b) the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults and emphasize the following:... (iii) enhanced procedural protection to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and that their rights, including their right to privacy, are protected,... (d) special considerations apply in respect of proceedings against young persons and, in particular, (i) young persons have rights and freedoms in their own right, such as a right to be heard in the course of and to participate in the processes, other than the decision to prosecute, that lead to decisions that affect them, and young persons have special guarantees of their rights and freedoms,... (iv) parents should be informed of measures or proceedings involving their children and encouraged to support them in addressing their offending behaviour. Act to be liberally construed (2) This Act shall be liberally construed so as to ensure that young persons are dealt with in accordance with the principles set out in subsection (1). emphasis added. 64. As well, s. 25 provides enhanced rights to counsel for young people: 25. (1) A young person has the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, and to exercise that right personally, at any stage of proceedings against the young person and before and during any consideration of whether, instead of starting or continuing judicial proceedings against the young person under this Act, to use an extrajudicial sanction to deal with the young person. (2) Every young person who is arrested or detained shall, on being arrested or detained, be advised without delay by the arresting officer or the officer in charge, as the case may be, of the right to retain and instruct counsel, and be given an opportunity to obtain counsel emphasis added.
18 Thus young people must be advised of their right to counsel upon detention, and must be permitted to contact their lawyer at any time. 66. There is one further provision in the YCJA that deals with youth statements. S. 147 deals with statements made during the course of an assessment pursuant to s. 34 (medical or psychological assessments). Such statements will generally be inadmissible at trial, but there are 12 enumerated exceptions to that rule. Of those exceptions, notable ones are that statements made during the preparation of a s. 34 report will be admissible for sentencing, fitness or NCR hearings, to challenge the young person s credibility in any proceeding and against the young person in perjury proceedings. VI. CONCLUSION 67. The admissibility of statements made by young people is a bit of a vast area. It is important for counsel to be aware of the high standard placed on police who are seeking to obtain incriminating statements from young people.
Young offender confessions: right versus required. R. v. S.S. (2007) Ont. C.A. 1. By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed
Young offender confessions: right versus required R. v. S.S. (2007) Ont. C.A. 1 By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed I. Sec. 146(2)(b)(iv) and sec. 146(6) YCJA Among the numerous controversies surrounding young
More informationProsper Warning: Part 2. R. v. Weeseekase(2007) 1. By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed. I. Executive Summary
Prosper Warning: Part 2 R. v. Weeseekase(2007) 1 By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed. I. Executive Summary This is the second of a two-part series on the application of the Prosper Warning in cases where an arrested
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN: COURT FILE No.: District Municipality of Muskoka #07-354 Citation: R. v. Andrews, 2008 ONCJ 599 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND DANNY ANDREWS Before Justice Wm. G. Beatty Heard
More informationRelationship between Polygraph, Right to Counsel, and Confessions: R. v. Chalmers (2009) 1 Ontario Court of Appeal By Gino Arcaro M.Ed., B.Sc.
Relationship between Polygraph, Right to Counsel, and Confessions: R. v. Chalmers (2009) 1 Ontario Court of Appeal By Gino Arcaro M.Ed., B.Sc. I. The polygraph paradox A polygraph test is both part of
More informationSECTION 8 UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE
SECTION 8 UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE : Did X violate Y s section 8 rights when they searched? : Section 8 states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. The
More informationIN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2011 SKPC 180 Date: November 21, 2011 Information: Location: North Battleford, Saskatchewan
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2011 SKPC 180 Date: November 21, 2011 Information: 24417083 Location: North Battleford, Saskatchewan Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Jesse John
More informationTable of Contents. CON-1 (Mental Disorder) (2013-3)
Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION... 1-1 1.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE... 1-1 (a) Pre-1992 Amendments... 1-1 (b) The Reform Movement... 1-4 (c) The Swain Decision... 1-6 (d) The 1992 Amendments: Part XX.1
More informationBetween Her Majesty the Queen, and Brandon Oliver. [2011] O.J. No Ontario Court of Justice Brampton, Ontario. W.J. Blacklock J.
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Oliver Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Brandon Oliver [2011] O.J. No. 4554 Ontario Court of Justice Brampton, Ontario W.J. Blacklock J. Oral judgment: June 20, 2011. (32 paras.)
More informationCRIMINAL LAW PROFESSIONAL STANDARD #2
CRIMINAL LAW PROFESSIONAL STANDARD #2 NAME OF STANDARD A GUILTY PLEA Brief Description of Standard: A standard on the steps to be taken by counsel before entering a guilty plea on behalf of a client. Committee
More informationR. v. H. (S.) Defences Automatism Insane and non-insane
88 [Indexed as: R. v. H. (S.)] Her Majesty the Queen, Appellant and S.H., Respondent Ontario Court of Appeal Docket: CA C56874 2014 ONCA 303 Robert J. Sharpe, David Watt, M.L. Benotto JJ.A. Heard: January
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Against. Gerard Joseph MacDonald
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R v. MacDonald 2007 PESCTD 29 Date: 20070820 Docket: S1 GC-556 Registry: Charlottetown Between Her Majesty the Queen Against
More informationCitation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: 2000308 2000 PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC-17475 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (ONTARIO) PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE REPORT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (ONTARIO) PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE REPORT (Criminal Code, s. 625.1) (Criminal Proceedings Rules, Rule 28) (Form 17) NOTE: 1. This form must be completed in full in all cases, and
More informationAPPROPRIATE ADULT AT LUTON POLICE STATION
PROCEDURES APPROPRIATE ADULT AT LUTON POLICE STATION Version 1 Date: August 2013 Version No Date of Review Brief Description Amended Section Editor Date for next Review V 1 August 2013 ARREST AND DETENTION
More informationYouth as Victims and Offenders in the Criminal Justice System: A Charter Analysis Recognizing Vulnerability
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 40 (2008) Article 19 Youth as Victims and Offenders in the Criminal Justice System: A Charter Analysis Recognizing
More informationBill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION November 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) PREFACE...
More informationBill C-2: Highlights and Issues
Nova Scotia Fall Criminal Law Conference Bill C-2: Highlights and Issues Halifax, Nova Scotia November 21, 2008 Philip Perlmutter Counsel - Crown Law Office Criminal Overview: This paper highlights some
More informationCase Name: R. v. XXXXX-XXXXX. Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Diego G. XXXXX-XXXXX. [2010] O.J. No File No
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. XXXXX-XXXXX Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Diego G. XXXXX-XXXXX [2010] O.J. No. 5433 File No. 09-0082 Counsel: Mr. R. Tallim, Counsel for the Crown. Mr. D. Anber, Counsel for
More informationIN BRIEF SECTION 24(2) OF THE CHARTER EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE. Learning Objectives. Materials. Extension. Teaching and Learning Strategies
OF THE CHARTER EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE Learning Objectives To develop students knowledge of section 24(2) of the Charter, including the legal test used to determine whether or not evidence obtained through
More informationPolicy of the Provincial Court of British Columbia
Information Regarding Bans on Publication Policy Effective Date: Policy Code: February 28, 2011 ACC-3 Scope of Application: Applies to Provincial Court of proceedings. Purpose of Policy To provide a general
More informationCase Name: R. v. McLean. Between Her Majesty the Queen, Crown, and Robert Andrew McLean, Accused. [2014] A.J. No ABPC 231
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. McLean Between Her Majesty the Queen, Crown, and Robert Andrew McLean, Accused [2014] A.J. No. 1137 2014 ABPC 231 Docket: 131243958P1 Registry: St. Paul Alberta Provincial Court
More informationLaw 12 Substantive Assignments Reading Booklet
Law 12 Substantive Assignments Reading Booklet Reading # 1: Police and the Law Training and Qualifications Police officers have to go through both physical and academic training to become members of the
More informationIN THE YOUTH COURT AT AUCKLAND CRN: [2017] NZYC 375. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor. H C Young Person
NOTE: NO PUBLICATION OF A REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING IS PERMITTED UNDER S 438 OF THE CHILDREN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND THEIR FAMILIES ACT 1989, EXCEPT WITH THE LEAVE OF THE COURT THAT HEARD THE PROCEEDINGS,
More informationNo free trade of constitutional rights. Canada will not adopt the American rulebook on Miranda Rights.
Oct. 8, 2010 Landmark Decision Day Part 1 by Gino Arcaro M.Ed., B.Sc. No free trade of constitutional rights. Canada will not adopt the American rulebook on Miranda Rights. On Oct. 8, 2010, the Supreme
More informationBill C-337 Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act
Bill C-337 Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION April 2017 500-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5S8 tel/tél : 613.237.2925
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Bruhm, 2018 NSSC 295. v. Austin James Douglas Bruhm. Voir Dire Decision
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Bruhm, 2018 NSSC 295 Date: 20181121 Docket: CRBW473972 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Austin James Douglas Bruhm Restriction on Publication
More informationCHAPTER TWO: YOUTH JUSTICE
CHAPTER TWO: YOUTH JUSTICE TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TWO: YOUTH JUSTICE... 1 I. INTRODUCTION... 1 A. LSLAP AND YOUTH JUSTICE... 1 B. HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE CHANGES... 1 II. GOVERNING LEGISLATION AND RESOURCES...
More informationBALTIMORE CITY SCHOOLS Baltimore School Police Force MIRANDA WARNINGS
MIRANDA WARNINGS This Directive contains the following numbered sections: I. Directive II. Purpose III. Definitions IV. General V. Juveniles VI. Effective Date I. DIRECTIVE It is the intent of the Baltimore
More informationACCESS TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE Divergent Trends in the Legal Profession DISCLOSURE REVISITED
ACCESS TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE Divergent Trends in the Legal Profession November 29, 2002 DISCLOSURE REVISITED Faculty: Anne Malick, Q.C. Speaking Notes Access to Solicitor/Client Privilegd Information-McClure
More informationISSUES. Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing. Prepared by: Andrew Mason
SENTENCING ISSUES Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Prepared by: Andrew Mason Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site:
More informationv No St. Clair Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 30, 2018 v No. 337354 St. Clair Circuit Court RICKY EDWARDS, LC No. 16-002145-FH
More informationELECTRONIC RECORDING OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION PROCEDURES
The Allegheny County Chiefs of Police Association ELECTRONIC RECORDING OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION PROCEDURES An Allegheny County Criminal Justice Advisory Board Project In Partnership With The Allegheny
More informationISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
BAIL HEARINGS ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site: http://www.lexicongraphics.com/scdla.htm
More informationIN BRIEF SECTION 1 OF THE CHARTER AND THE OAKES TEST
THE CHARTER AND THE OAKES TEST Learning Objectives To establish the importance of s. 1 in both ensuring and limiting our rights. To introduce students to the Oakes test and its important role in Canadian
More informationYouth Criminal Justice Act
Page 1 of 92 Youth Criminal Justice Act ( 2002, c. 1 ) Disclaimer: These documents are not the official versions (more). Act current to September 3rd, 2008 Attention: See coming into force provision and
More informationWhat happens at a Crown Court trial - The prosecution case.
What happens at a Crown Court trial - The prosecution case. Please note that in the Crown Court you can be represented by either a barrister or a solicitor advocate. Representation is the single most important
More informationOntario Justice Education Network
1 Ontario Justice Education Network Section 10 of the Charter Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) (b) to be informed promptly
More informationSubmissions to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
Submissions to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration By Justice for Children and Youth Regarding Bill C-6 An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act 8 April 2016 About Justice for Children and
More informationIndex. Current to Release accused subject to a hospital detention
Index Current to Release 2013-3 ABORIGINAL OFFENDERS. consideration of under s. 672.54, 7.4(e), 8.3(d), 9.3(b)(iii), 11.5(a)(iii) ABSOLUTE DISCHARGES. s. 672.54 disposition, 9.1(b) APPEALS. common issues
More informationLESSON PLAN FOR CONDUCTING A UNIT OF INSTRUCTION IN MIRANDA v. ARIZONA YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
LESSON PLAN FOR CONDUCTING A UNIT OF INSTRUCTION IN MIRANDA v. ARIZONA YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT Law Enforcement Services I / 10th 12th Grade Created By: Becky Holliday and Valerie Jackson (June
More informationSEARCH & SEIZURE IN CANADA. A comprehensive guide on gun owners rights and obligations. including case law reviews edition
SEARCH & SEIZURE IN CANADA A comprehensive guide on gun owners rights and obligations including case law reviews 2018 edition INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES OF POLICE OFFICERS The police use their powers in
More informationARREST AND RELEASE. Douglas G. Curliss Department of Justice (Canada) 10 th Floor, nd Avenue South Saskatoon, SK S7K 7E6
ARREST AND RELEASE Douglas G. Curliss Department of Justice (Canada) 10 th Floor, 123 2 nd Avenue South Saskatoon, SK S7K 7E6 Revised 2003 Not to be used or reproduced without permission - Saskatchewan
More informationBetween Regina, and C.N.H. and P.B. [2006] B.C.J. No BCPC 119 Vancouver Registry No
Case Name: R. v. C.N.H. Between Regina, and C.N.H. and P.B. [2006] B.C.J. No. 782 2006 BCPC 119 Vancouver Registry No. 19731-1 British Columbia Provincial Court (Youth Justice Court) Vancouver, British
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION. Clarke, C.J.N.S., Jones and Matthews, JJ.A. RAYMOND MARC LePAGE, -and-
S.C.C. No.01511 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: Clarke, C.J.N.S., Jones and Matthews, JJ.A. RAYMOND MARC LePAGE, -and- Appellant HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent E.A.N. Blackburn
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Burrell, 2018 NSPC 9. Adam Leslie Burrell LIBRARY HEADING
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Burrell, 2018 NSPC 9 Date: 20180409 Docket: Dartmouth No. 8110547 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Adam Leslie Burrell LIBRARY HEADING
More informationOACP 2010 Conference. R. v. Nasogaluak. Sentence Reductions for Police Misconduct. Jason D. Fraser Manager, Legal Services York Regional Police
OACP 2010 Conference R. v. Nasogaluak Sentence Reductions for Police Misconduct Jason D. Fraser Manager, Legal Services York Regional Police Revised June, 2010 Overview Before Nasogaluak: Sentence reductions
More informationThe Summary Offences Procedure Act, 1990
Consolidated to June 9, 2015 1 SUMMARY OFFENCES PROCEDURE, 1990 c.s-63.1 The Summary Offences Procedure Act, 1990 being Chapter S-63.1* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1990-91 (effective January 1, 1991)
More informationDEFENDING DRINKING AND DRIVING CASES
Index A.L.E.R.T., see APPROVED SCREENING DEVICE ALCOHOL INFLUENCE REPORT, see APPENDIX G APPROVED INSTRUMENT, see APPENDIX C APPROVED SCREENING DEVICE Charter violations 4.8 Conduct of test calibration
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE No.: Toronto Region, Metro North Court DATE: 2009 02 24 Citation: R. v. Gubins, 2009 ONCJ 80 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND MELISSA GUBINS Before Justice Leslie
More informationThird Party Records Disclosure Applications s. 278 Criminal Code. D. Brian Newton, Q.C.
Third Party Records Disclosure Applications s. 278 Criminal Code D. Brian Newton, Q.C. Preamble Several years ago, I was approached by Victim Services of the Department of Justice in regards to providing
More informationPRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE REPORT (Criminal Code, s )
Page 1 of 17 NOTE: PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE REPORT (Criminal Code, s. 625.1) 1. This form must be completed in full in all cases, and signed by the assigned counsel, or a counsel authorized to bind the, and
More informationIndexed as: R. v. Coulter. Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Marc Coulter. [2000] O.J. No Ontario Court of Justice Brampton, Ontario
Page 1 Indexed as: R. v. Coulter Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Marc Coulter [2000] O.J. No. 3452 Ontario Court of Justice Brampton, Ontario Duncan J. July 25, 2000. (36 paras.) Criminal law -- Offences
More informationPage CarswellOnt 543,
Page 1 2011 CarswellOnt 543 R. v. Taylor Her Majesty the Queen v Bryan Taylor Ontario Court of Justice K.N. Barnes J. Heard: January 20, 2011 Judgment: January 20, 2011 Docket: None given. Thomson Reuters
More information3:00 A.M. THE MAGISTRATE THE JUVENILE THE STATEMENT KEEPING IT LEGAL
THE MAGISTRATE THE JUVENILE THE STATEMENT KEEPING IT LEGAL Kameron D. Johnson E:mail Kameron.johnson@co.travis.tx.us Presented by Ursula Hall, Judge, City of Houston 3:00 A.M. Who are Magistrates? U.S.
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEAL COURT
COURT FILE NO.: SCA(P2731/08 (Brampton DATE: 20090724 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEAL COURT B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Cynthia Valarezo, for the Crown Respondent -
More informationSUBJECT: Sample Interview & Interrogation Policy
TO: FROM: All Members Education Committee SUBJECT: Sample Interview & Interrogation Policy DATE: February 2011 Attached is a SAMPLE Interview & Interrogation policy that may be of use to your department.
More informationThe Summary Offences Procedure Act, 1990
1 SUMMARY OFFENCES PROCEDURE, 1990 S-63.1 The Summary Offences Procedure Act, 1990 being Chapter S-63.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1990-91 (effective January 1, 1991) as amended by the Statutes of
More informationALBERTA INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER May 3, 2000 ALBERTA CHILDREN S SERVICES. Review Number 1713
ALBERTA INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER 2000-006 May 3, 2000 ALBERTA CHILDREN S SERVICES Review Number 1713 I. BACKGROUND [para. 1.] On August 12, 1999, the Applicant applied under the Freedom
More informationCase Comment: Ictensev v. The Minister of Employement and Immigration
Journal of Law and Social Policy Volume 5 Article 10 1989 Case Comment: Ictensev v. The Minister of Employement and Immigration Michael Bossin Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/jlsp
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union. (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES
21.5.2016 L 132/1 I (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/800 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons
More informationReport of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland
Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland independent and effective investigations and reviews independent and effective investigations and reviews Index 1. Role of the PIRC
More informationAlberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: Action No
Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: 20030318 Action No. 0203 19075 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON IN THE MATTER OF the Freedom of Information
More informationSay What?! A Review of Recent U.S. Supreme Court 5 th Amendment Self-incrimination Case Law
Say What?! A Review of Recent U.S. Supreme Court 5 th Amendment Self-incrimination Case Law POPPI RITACCO Attorney Advisor / Senior Instructor State and Local Training Division Federal Law Enforcement
More informationPolice interviews. Role of the Responsible Adult or Independent Person
Police interviews Role of the Responsible Adult or Independent Person Role of the Responsible Adult or Independent Person at police interviews with a child or young person (under 18) This fact sheet is
More informationThe PLEA. Vol. 34 No. 2 PM
Canada s Legal System : An Introduction The PLEA Vol. 34 No. 2 Canada is very fortunate to be a country with a fair legal system. This is because Canada adheres to the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is the
More informationA View From the Bench Administrative Law
A View From the Bench Administrative Law Justice David Farrar Nova Scotia Court of Appeal With the Assistance of James Charlton, Law Clerk Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Court of Appeal for Ontario: Mavi
More informationYouth Criminal Justice in Canada: A compendium of statistics
Youth Criminal Justice in Canada: A compendium of statistics Research and Statistics Division and Policy Implementation Directorate Department of Justice Canada 216 Information contained in this publication
More informationPROTECTION AGAINST FAMILY VIOLENCE ACT
Province of Alberta PROTECTION AGAINST FAMILY VIOLENCE ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of March 30, 2018 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer
More informationThe Quality of Lawyer Consultation: What constitutes enough legal advice?
The Quality of Lawyer Consultation: What constitutes enough legal advice? Part 1: R. v. Osmond (2007) BCCA 1 (the short version) by Gino Arcaro M.Ed., B.Sc. I. Overview This is the first part of a research
More informationMarch 3, Lorna Milne, M.P. Chair Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Senate of Canada Ottawa ON K1A 0A4. Dear Ms.
March 3, 1999 Lorna Milne, M.P. Chair Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Senate of Canada Ottawa ON K1A 0A4 Dear Ms. Milne, I am writing on behalf of the National Criminal Justice Section
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE No.: Regional Municipality of York File #00-86401409-90 Citation: R. v. Vellone, 2009 ONCJ 150 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under of the Provincial Offences Act BETWEEN:
More informationThe McLachlin Court in Criminal Law: A Principled and Pragmatic Court. By Justice Shaun Nakatsuru June 19, 2009 Ottawa
The McLachlin Court in Criminal Law: A Principled and Pragmatic Court By Justice Shaun Nakatsuru June 19, 2009 Ottawa INTRODUCTION Over the last decade, in criminal law, the McLachlin Court has offered
More informationSelected Developments in Criminal Law. Prof. Vanessa MacDonnell
Selected Developments in Criminal Law and Evidence 2010 2011 Prof. Vanessa MacDonnell Selected Developments in Criminal Law & Evidence: Overview SCC clarified the nature and scope of the s. 10(b) right
More informationThe Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott
The Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott Tom Irvine Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Law Branch Human Rights Code Amendments May 5, 2014 Saskatoon
More informationR. v. D.B., Introduction pending.
R. v. D.B., 2008 Introduction pending. R. v. D.B., 2008 SCC 25 Hearing: October 10, 2007; Judgment May 16, 2008 Present: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and
More informationThe Adult Guardianship and Co decision making Act
ADULT GUARDIANSHIP AND 1 The Adult Guardianship and Co decision making Act being Chapter A-5.3* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2000 (effective July 15, 2001) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan,
More informationReport to the Department of Justice Canada
The Impact of the Youth Criminal Justice Act on Police Charging Practices with Young Persons: A Preliminary Statistical Assessment Peter J. Carrington and Jennifer L. Schulenberg Report to the Department
More informationCase 3:17-cr SI Document 68 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case 3:17-cr-00431-SI Document 68 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DAT QUOC DO, Case No. 3:17-cr-431-SI OPINION AND
More informationIn the Provincial Court of Alberta
In the Provincial Court of Alberta Citation: R. v. Clements, 2007 ABPC 220 Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Date: 20070911 Docket: 050217389P101, 103 Registry: Okotoks Allan Herbert Clements Voir
More informationA Survivor s Guide. to Sexual Assault Prosecution. Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service
A Survivor s Guide to Sexual Assault Prosecution Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service A Survivor s Guide to Sexual Assault Prosecution Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service Table of Contents Contact
More informationThe Summary Offences Procedure Act, 1990
1 SUMMARY OFFENCES PROCEDURE, 1990 S-63.1 The Summary Offences Procedure Act, 1990 being Chapter S-63.1* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1990-91 (effective January 1, 1991) as amended by the Statutes
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20171121 Docket: YO 16-01-35006 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Green Cited as: 2017 MBQB 181 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) Cindy Sholdice
More informationPlaintiff Entrapment Municipal Hearsay Substantive Trafficking Counter Claim Provocation Probation Justice of the peace
Mr. Thorburn CLU 3M1 January 2015 Review all tests, notes, handouts and other material from the entire semester. 1) Read all instructions and exam questions carefully. 2) Write your name on the top of
More informationINFORMATION NOTICE. Detention Review Hearings pursuant to s. 525 of the Criminal Code
INFORMATION NOTICE Detention Review Hearings pursuant to s. 525 of the Criminal Code Section 525 of the Criminal Code provides for an automatic review of an accused s detention as a consequence of the
More informationARREST WARRANTS COMMON PROTOCOL NATURE OF DOCUMENT: FIRST ISSUED: JANUARY 30, 2011 LAST SUBSTANTIVE REVISION: JANUARY 30, 2011
DOCUMENT TITLE: ARREST WARRANTS COMMON PROTOCOL NATURE OF DOCUMENT: PROTOCOL FIRST ISSUED: JANUARY 30, 2011 LAST SUBSTANTIVE REVISION: JANUARY 30, 2011 EDITED / DISTRIBUTED JANUARY 30, 2011 [EFFECTIVE
More informationPOLICE WARNINGS Effective Date: May 9, 2005 Revised: September 8, 2009
SOUTH COAST BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY POLICE SERVICE POLICE WARNINGS Effective Date: May 9, 2005 Revised: September 8, 2009 POLICY 1. All persons must be advised of their Charter rights
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Bowser, 2016 NSPC 34. Her Majesty the Queen v. Joseph Wayne Bowser and Ricky Daniel Cameron
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Bowser, 2016 NSPC 34 Between: Date: April 14, 2016 Docket: 2379172-73, 2379175-76 Registry: Dartmouth Her Majesty the Queen v. Joseph Wayne Bowser and Ricky
More informationCase Name: Laudon v. Roberts. Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants. [2007] O.J. No.
Page 1 Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants [2007] O.J. No. 1703 46 C.P.C. (6th) 180 157 A.C.W.S. (3d) 279 157 A.C.W.S. (3d) 341
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Parsons, 2017 NSSC 269 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN DYLAN DOUGLAS MICHAEL PARSONS. Decision
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Parsons, 2017 NSSC 269 Date: 20171016 Docket: CRP444456 Registry: Pictou Between: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. DYLAN DOUGLAS MICHAEL PARSONS Decision Judge: Heard:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. LeBlanc, 2018 NSSC 234. Coty Weston Warren LeBlanc and Michael Charles Benoit
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. LeBlanc, 2018 NSSC 234 Date: 2018-09-27 Docket: CRAT No. 475651 Registry: Antigonish Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Coty Weston Warren LeBlanc and Michael
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Orbanski; R. v. Elias, 2005 SCC 37 DATE: 20050616 DOCKET: 29793, 29920 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: Christopher Orbanski Appellant v. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent -
More informationPreparation and Planning: Interviewers are taught to properly prepare and plan for the interview and formulate aims and objectives.
In 1984 Britain introduced the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 (PACE) and the Codes of Practice for police officers which eventually resulted in a set of national guidelines on interviewing both
More informationNOTICE OF DECISION. AND TO: Chief Constable Police Department. AND TO: Inspector Police Department. AND TO: Sergeant Police Department AND TO:
IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE ACT, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 367 AND IN THE MATTER OF A REVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS OF DECEIT AND DISCREDITABLE CONDUCT AGAINST CONSTABLE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DECISION TO:
More informationRULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULES 3:26 BAIL
RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULES 3:26 BAIL Rule 3:26-1. Right to Pretrial Release Before Conviction (a) Persons Entitled; Standards for Fixing. (1) Persons Charged on a Complaint-Warrant
More informationHOME INVASIONS FIRST ISSUED: APRIL 3, 2000 LAST SUBSTANTIVE REVISION: APRIL 3, 2000
DOCUMENT TITLE: HOME INVASIONS NATURE OF DOCUMENT: AG DIRECTIVE FIRST ISSUED: APRIL 3, 2000 LAST SUBSTANTIVE REVISION: APRIL 3, 2000 EDITED / DISTRIBUTED: SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 NOTE: THIS POLICY DOCUMENT IS
More informationThe Code. for Crown Prosecutors
The Code for Crown Prosecutors January 2013 Introduction 1.1 The Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences
More informationYouth Criminal Justice Act Young offenders and the criminal justice system
Youth Criminal Justice Act Young offenders and the criminal justice system In this brochure, masculine personal pronouns are used in order to lighten the text. They are to be read as designating both males
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 20, 2015 v No. 327393 Wayne Circuit Court ROKSANA GABRIELA SIKORSKI, LC No. 15-001059-FJ Defendant-Appellee.
More information2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works
Page 1 2010 CarswellOnt 6035 R. v. Williams Her Majesty the Queen v. Jermaine Williams Ontario Court of Justice W.P. Bassel J. Heard: August 5, 2010 Judgment: August 5, 2010 Docket: None given. Thomson
More informationJUSTICES CLERKS SOCIETY SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (CHIEF MAGISTRATE)
Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) JUSTICES CLERKS SOCIETY SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (CHIEF MAGISTRATE) Youth Court Jurisdiction The Modern Approach July 2015 This is the joint advice of the Justices'
More information