Reid Institute Members - new Canadian column - "Fresh Start" and the "Pendulum Swing"

In Gino Arcaro's 2007 3-part interrogation series he addressed the issue of admissibility of statements made after consulting with a lawyer, when a Charter violation had occurred prior to consulting a lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in R. v. Lewis (2007) that a "fresh start" is required to separate pre-and post-consultation (with a lawyer) interrogation.[2] Two questions and their resolution were considered during the Lewis trial:

1. Are post-consultation statements admissible after pre-consultation questioning violates section 10(b) Charter?
2. How can you negate the effects of the section 10(b) Charter violation? How can you rectify the pre-consultation Charter violation?

The answers:

1. If the two parts of the interrogation are connected the post-consultation statements will likely be inadmissible. If they are disconnected, the post-consultation statement will not be affected by the Charter violation and will likely be admissible (assuming the statement is voluntary).
2. You can make a "fresh start" following the lawyer consultation by severing the pre-consultation and post-consultation questioning.

He expands on this issue in view of the court's decision in R. v. Wittwer (2008) SCC[1].