Seems people have lost their rights to legal counsel. Awesome.

[Cleo Catra 178382]

Police can now interrogate you as long as they want and refuse your right to an attorney. Glad to see Canada is moving up in the world. Jesus.

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Supreme+Court+restricts+right+have+lawyer+during+police+questioning/3649136/story.html

[spud271 47779]

Sounds like 1930's Germany to me! Just brutal!!!!

[cat 262460]

Very Scary!

 

cat

[kih 458]

What is the penalty if one remained silent?

[tiimde71 176]

From what I have read is that the methods being used are designed to break a person. They would not be possible with a lawyer present. The extended hours of harassment and aggressive behavior are designed to break a person. The problem is that though this will get to the truth in some cases but it can create enough confusion that an innocent person could give conflicting and inaccurate answers that can be used against them.

 

We are turning into a country of cowards where we are so afraid of what might happen to us that we will sacrifice basic human rights.

[rickoshadows 937]

What is the penalty if one remained silent?

 

There is no penalty and it doesn't matter what the police think. A judge will think that here is a person who excercised his right to remain silent.

 

Even if you are completely inocent and you are being questioned as a witness. If you are alone with an interrogator, the best thing you can do is clam up. This is different than being a witness at the scene where timely information is helpful. If you are being detained for questioning, you are now a person of interest and you have the right to not say anything.

[Guest s******ecan****]

There is no penalty and it doesn't matter what the police think. A judge will think that here is a person who excercised his right to remain silent.

 

Even if you are completely inocent and you are being questioned as a witness. If you are alone with an interrogator, the best thing you can do is clam up. This is different than being a witness at the scene where timely information is helpful. If you are being detained for questioning, you are now a person of interest and you have the right to not say anything.

 

This ruling is an abomination, the worst aspect is that being a SC decision there is no way to appeal it. I can't fathom the mindset of the 5 justices that ruled as they did since this ruling goes against so much of our recent legal progress.

 

As for clamming up yes in theory this seems safe, however one must remember just how effective the police can be in these interrogations, and you can bet they will all take full advantage of this travesty of a ruling.

 

It seems to me the only remedy to this is a new law passed by Parliament requiring all police interrogations to be video recorded as well as a strict law setting down what is permissible for police to do during this interrogation (no lying, no presentation of false evidence, regular breaks, no denial of food, cigarettes, etc).

 

Yes we'd all like to think that only the "guilty" will suffer for this but we all know that government is frequently incompetent and police are no different. The bring their human error, biasis, and prejudices to every case, as well as an often "gung-ho" mentality of "convict first ask questions later."

 

Absolutely disgraceful and a tragic and sad day for our country.

 

and lastly I can honestly say I'll be much less likely from now on to ever talk to Police regarding any sort of investigation in light of this ruling....for my own protection.

[Ashley Croft 1019]

Wow.

I grew up as a nice girl in the suburbs raised to trust the police as protectors. After seeing an officer lie - under oath, in court - I stopped believing that. (And that was in a case about human rights and police behavior, not a criminal situation.) Living in Toronto through the G20 debacle further eroded my trust. It's hard to believe the Supreme Court would decide this. Chilling.

[gentle-man 100]

A very bad decision which will impact our Human Rights!:sad:

[tiimde71 176]

We have to remember this when we vote and we have to call our mp's. This is what happens when the politics of fear takes over. The cowards and those who feel they are so good nothing bad can happen to them take over. Crime is way down from what it has been and violent crime is even lower.

 

Bad things happen but we cannot trample on human rights in an effort to change that. First of all it won't work second of all this kind of ruling only ensures that the bad thing that do happen will be at the hands of the cops. There is too much of that already.

[thompo69 198]

I am a little curious if anyone has actually read these rulings (there were in fact 3 related rulings released by the SCC yesterday) to see what they say. The media is notorious for oversimplifying and frankly misrepresenting legal issues.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

The following may or may not be of significance, and I readily admit that it is definitely simplistic (I have not been a keen Supreme Court watcher, so I claim absolutely no wisdom in this area, either.)

 

But I find it interesting to take note of how this particular 5-4 decision, which is against one aspect of Civil Liberty, looks from one particular angle. When the voting is broken out in terms of by whom the justices were appointed (or, officially, upon the advice of which Prime Minister each of the justices were appointed), the voting in this case was as follows:

Liberal

-appointed Justices voted

2 - 4

Conservative

-appointed Justices voted

3 - 0

in favour of the majority

In terms of looking forward to any cases that may wind up before the Supreme Court in the next few years (ahem), it may also be worth noting that three of the dissenters in this decision (i.e. three of the four who favoured the civil rights of the accused) have mandatory retirement dates coming up of 2013 (Fish), and 2014 (Binnie and LeBel).

 

It need not be said that, when the SPOC constitutional case finally reaches Ottawa, who exactly the nine Justices are at that time may play a decisive role in the ultimate outcome of the case.

[thompo69 198]

As I pointed out above, there were in fact 3 related rulings on the right to counsel. Only one was 5-4, the other two were 6-3.

[Phaedrus 209521]

What is the penalty if one remained silent?

I'm not sure. ISTR reading somewhere (can't remember where, sorry) that you could potentially be charged with obstruction of justice or something similar if you tried that. Which sounds like a particularly hideous catch-22 to me, if it's true...

 

Additional Comments:

It seems to me the only remedy to this is a new law passed by Parliament requiring all police interrogations to be video recorded ...(snip)

I don't know that that would suffice. How often have recordings of interrogations been lost or deleted? 'Administrative errors' can be very useful at times, I suspect...

[Guest s******ecan****]

I'm not sure. ISTR reading somewhere (can't remember where, sorry) that you could potentially be charged with obstruction of justice or something similar if you tried that. Which sounds like a particularly hideous catch-22 to me, if it's true...

 

Additional Comments:

 

I don't know that that would suffice. How often have recordings of interrogations been lost or deleted? 'Administrative errors' can be very useful at times, I suspect...

 

 

You cannot be charged with obstruction of justice for refusing to incrimidate yourself except in a round about way in regards to refusing to take a breathalyzer.

 

As far as the recording issue I have no illsuions that such a law would ever likely be passed but to avoid the situation you mentioned the law could have the provision that if the video recording was not made available in its entirety than no statements or evidence from the interrogation would be admissable.

 

Our only other recourse would be a strengthening of the Charter Provision that the court has so weakly interpreted. This of course would only be possible through an amendment to the charter which is practically impossible due to difficulty in getting amendments passed.

 

Therefore we are likely stuck with this.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

As I pointed out above, there were in fact 3 related rulings on the right to counsel ....

 

I am referring to the most contentious one, R. v. Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35:

 

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc35/2010scc35.html

 

From Justice Binnie's dissenting opinion (my bold):　

[78] Many confessions obtained in extended police interrogations are true,

but too many are not

....

 

Such cases signal caution when approaching the rules governing police interrogations ....

 

[89] The Crown seems to conceive of the police interrogation as an

endurance contest

between the detainee, who

starts off with the benefit of the standard police warning and generic advice from his or her lawyer

(presumably to refuse to cooperate ? what else can the lawyer advise at that outset?) and, on the other hand, an experienced police interrogator who wants to cajole and manoeuvre and wear down the detainee into making incriminating statements and, if possible, a full confession ....

[92] Yet, in their endurance contest with the detainee,

the police are now given three trump cards

. The first is

Oickle

itself, which sets a substantial hurdle to making inadmissible a confession on the basis of involuntariness. The second is

R. v. Singh

, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 405, which allows the police to prolong the endurance contest despite repeated assertions of the right to silence by the detainee and the frequently expressed desire to return to his cell.

And now we have the present appeal which denies the detainee even a "second" consultation with counsel regardless of the length of the interrogation, unless there is a significant change of circumstances, which in the majority view does not include the unfolding information disclosed by the police to the detainee in the course of the investigation, however critical such information might be to the correctness of the legal advice initially provided, or to the need for further advice

....

 

[118] The initial refusal to allow the appellant to consult further with his counsel did not constitute a breach. The breach occurred when after several hours or so of suggestions (subtle and not so subtle) and argument, Sgt. Skrine confronted the appellant with what he said was "absolutely overwhelming" evidence linking the appellant to the crime and the appellant repeated his desire to consult with his counsel before going further. At least in part the appellant must have wondered if the initial 360 seconds of legal advice was still valid.

Given the unfolding of new information up to that point in the interview, his request to speak again to counsel was reasonable, and the police refusal of that further consultation was, in my view, a breach of s. 10(

b

).

[Lowdark 5613]

It is a fine line setting boundaries that allow law enforcement the lattitude to snare predators and other dangers while protecting the liberties of a nation as a whole. But I believe this ruling crosses that line. The only way I can see it justified is if the entire interrogation is video recorded and then made the property of the court at trial, to be made available to the defense in its entirety, no questions asked so that it may be sructinized in its entiredy. Counsel should also have access to it immediately afterwards as well. For the most part, the police are honest, but we'd be ignorant to ignore the fact that there are enough who aren't (i.e. the recent controversies over the use of tasers) and there are some good officers who would tell you that there have been some innocent people convicted based on false confessions. This is an excellent thread. Democracy can only function with an informed electorate.

[thompo69 198]

From Justice Binnie's dissenting opinion (my bold):　

 

What is interesting is that Binnie in fact agrees with the fundamental finding that seems to have everyone in a tizzy -- that the right to counsel does not mean the right to be accompanied by that counsel throughout a custodial interview. Where he differed was whether or not the facts in this particular case presented a situation where the accused should have again been allowed to consult his lawyer. The majority thought it didn't, Binne thought it did. I have not had a chance to peruse the other dissent.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

hmmm .... I do not claim to speak for anyone else's tizziness. But I personally find this case just as tizzy-worthy as do the four dissenting Justices.

 

From the LeBel, Fish and Abella JJ. dissent (my bold):

[203] With respect, we find it difficult to reconcile the view that the right against self-incrimination ought to be ardently defended, with the suggestion that suspects who decide to exercise their right to consult with counsel, in order to meaningfully exercise their right to silence,

must nevertheless endure persistent and sustained custodial interrogation

. In our view, the approach of the Chief Justice and Charron J. does not pass constitutional muster.

 

[204] Accordingly, we are concerned lest the reasons of the Chief Justice and Charron J. be taken to have

constitutionalized a police right to the uninterrupted interrogation of detainees to the point of confession

. The police are not empowered by the common law or by statute, and still less by our Constitution, to prevent or undermine the effective exercise by detainees of either their right to silence or their right to counsel, or to compel them against their clearly expressed wishes to participate in

interrogations until confession

....

 

[206] Prior to his interrogation, Mr. Sinclair had two brief conversations with his lawyer, each lasting no more than three minutes. Some

eight hours later

, his [

five-hour-long

] interrogation began. Throughout the course of the custodial interrogation, Sgt. Skrine was consistent in his denial of Mr. Sinclair`s requests to consult with counsel.

 

[207] Mr. Sinclair requested either to consult with his lawyer or to have his lawyer present no less than

six times

throughout the interrogation

. Each request coincided with either the presentation of incriminating evidence, both real and invented, or a direct accusation

on the part of Sgt. Skrine. And in each instance, Sgt. Skrine either rebuffed the request explicitly, or simply ignored it and continued his relentless questioning.

 

[210]

He [sgt. Skrine]

suggests that it would be a "mistake" for Mr. Sinclair to continue to exercise his right to silence ...

 

[211] As this Court held in

R. v. Hebert

, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151, at p. 180, if a detainee asserts his or her right to silence and chooses not to speak, "the state is not entitled to use its

superior power to override the suspect’s will and negate his or her choice

". In our view, Sgt. Skrine did just that.

 

[212] As we have explained, both a straightforward reading and a purposive interpretation of s. 10(

b

) lend themselves to a broad conception of the right to counsel. The guarantee of

l’assistance d’un avocat

means

more than a one-time consultation

with counsel,

specifically when the brief consultation is followed by a lengthy interrogation, conducted by a skilled and experienced police interrogator.

[Guest s******ecan****]

For the most part, the police are honest...

 

 

But it is exactly because some aren't that our Common Law traditions have consistently recognized the unique vulnerability of those held in police custody or under suspicion of a crime. As is demonstrated in these dissenting opinions as posted by WIT police routinely lie during interrogations (even the so called honest cops!) and there is nothing that prohibits this (a long overdue change since most anyone else lying to you in a way that could have a material affect is guilty of fraud) in our current laws.