This decision below tell's people to remain silent and never say a word to police, no matter how long they hold you, or to interrogate you!
A bitterly divided Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that importing U.S.-style “Miranda rights” in Canada, by allowing suspects to have lawyers present during police interrogation, would frustrate criminal investigations and delay the administration of justice. By a 5-4 margin, the majority ruled the constitutional right to consult a lawyer after arrest does not extend to the police interrogation room.
The decision was a defeat for three men — two from British Columbia and one from Alberta — who sought to have their cases thrown out because they did not have counsel at their side during hours of police questioning. “We are not persuaded that the Miranda rule should be transplanted in Canadian soil,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Louise Charron wrote for the majority.
No right to lawyer during police interrogation: Supreme Court
By Janice Tibbetts, Postmedia News October 8, 2010 8:04 AM
Crime suspects do not have the constitutional right to have a lawyer present during police interrogation after arrest, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday
OTTAWA — Crime suspects do not have the constitutional right to have a lawyer present during police interrogation after arrest, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday. In a trio of decisions, a divided 5-4 court ruled against three men who sought to have their cases thrown out because they did not have counsel with them during questioning.
"The charter does not mandate the presence of defence counsel throughout a custodial interrogation," said the majority. "Precedent is against this interpretation."
At issue in the cases was the boundaries of the Charter right to counsel and whether it extends beyond being able to call and talk to a lawyer after arrest.
The court ruled that suspects must be given "a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel" and that "police must give the detainee an additional opportunity to receive advice from counsel where developments in the course of the investigation make this necessary." The three men — two from British Columbia and one from Alberta — brought separate challenges to the Supreme Court after losing in the appeal courts in their home provinces.
In the first case, in British Columbia, Trent Terrence Sinclair was convicted of manslaughter for killing Garry Grice in 2003. After arrest, he was advised of his right to counsel and he spoke to a lawyer twice, each time for about three minutes. He was later interviewed by police for about five hours and he stated five times during the questioning that he wanted his lawyer present during the interview. The officer deflected the requests, advised Sinclair that he did not have the right to have his lawyer there and eventually Sinclair implicated himself in Grice's death.
In a case from Alberta, Stanley James Willier spoke to his lawyer for about three minutes after his arrest in connection with a murder. He was later interviewed by police for approximately three hours. He was acquitted in court after his statement was declared inadmissible, but he lost on appeal and a new trial was ordered.
The third case involves Donald Russell McCrimmon, another British Columbian, who was charged on an eight-count indictment of assaulting women during a two-month period in 2005. He failed in his court challenge to his Charter rights being breached on grounds that he was denied the right to counsel during his interview with police.
The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association sided with the three litigants, arguing that suspects who are detained by the police have an ongoing right to speak to counsel. "Of the many protections afforded by the Charter, those triggered by an individual's arrest or detention are among the most critical," the association said in a written submission filed in the Supreme Court.
"Providing an individual with a one-time opportunity to speak to his or her lawyer at the beginning of a detention is not enough."
Postmedia News - Links
Even in the United States Free speech is going to be a thing of the past by judges rulings who have forgotten the Rule of Law.
It now appears certain the Supreme Court will rule against the First Amendment. “The justices appeared inclined to set a limit to freedom of speech when ordinary citizens are targeted with especially personal and hurtful attacks.
Read article...