The Right to Counsel in Canada

Jun 25
08:29

2012

Jeremy Maddock

Jeremy Maddock

  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Share this article on Twitter
  • Share this article on Linkedin

Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms preserves the right of a detained individual to contact counsel immediately upon arrest or detention, and simultaneously imposes a duty upon police to immediately inform individuals that they have this right.

mediaimage
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} The section states that “Everyone has the right on arrest or detention … to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right.”

The duty of police to inform suspects of their Section 10(b) rights was firmly established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bartle in 1994,The Right to Counsel in Canada Articles where the accused was arrested for alleged impaired driving and the police failed to inform him of his right to contact counsel at the time of arrest. The evidence against Mr. Bartle was excluded on the basis of the Charter breach.

R. v. Feeney was a further case in 1997, where a charge of second degree murder was thrown out after police entered the suspect’s home without a warrant and proceeded to question him without informing him of his right to counsel.

Unlike the American constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not expressly provide for a right to state-funded counsel where the accused cannot afford to retain a lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal, however, has interpreted Section 7 of the Charter as requiring the government to fund defense counsel in certainly, narrowly defined circumstances. The reasoning for this was laid out in the Rowbotham decision of 1988.

Article "tagged" as:

Categories: