Canadian Law May Column - The Oickle Derivatives - Part 2
Written By:
Reid
May 01, 2006
Overbearing Interrogation and Temporary Disclosure ñ R. v. Fattah (2006)[1]
An interrogation has two goals: (i) prevent a Charter violation and (ii) prevent involuntariness. Strategic planning must focus on the common element of prevention. However, the challenges that may surface are endless and statutory law usually provides no concrete rules that govern best practices. For example, the Charter imposes two institutional duties that are mobilized when an arrest is made: (i) reason (ii) right to counsel (RTC). Section (a) and (b) Charter impose those two instructional duties but the abstract language does not include concrete implementation strategies or best practices.
Continue Reading
An interrogation has two goals: (i) prevent a Charter violation and (ii) prevent involuntariness. Strategic planning must focus on the common element of prevention. However, the challenges that may surface are endless and statutory law usually provides no concrete rules that govern best practices. For example, the Charter imposes two institutional duties that are mobilized when an arrest is made: (i) reason (ii) right to counsel (RTC). Section (a) and (b) Charter impose those two instructional duties but the abstract language does not include concrete implementation strategies or best practices.