Two New Canadian Legal Columns
Written By:
Reid
Dec 26, 2008
Reid Institute Members will find 2 new Canadian legal columns on the Members What's New page. The first column discusses the case R. v. L.T.H (2008) S.C.C. Young offenders' waiver of right to counsel
I. Synopsis
"This case imposes the onus on police officers to determine any "significant factors" that affect a young offender's cognitive ability to understand the right to counsel and the waiver of the right to counsel. "Significant factors" include learning disabilities and previous experience with the criminal justice system. In other words, the police have a mandatory obligation to determine if a young offender has a learning disability before deciding on the language to use to instruct him/her of the right to counsel and before an interrogation begins. The 4 key points of this case are as follows:" Click here for the complete column.
The second column: "Frontline Interrogation: Solving the "mere suspicion bind"
R. v. Digiacomo (2008)[1] Admissibility, into evidence, of a loaded gun despite Charter violations
I. Synopsis
This case involves the admission of a loaded gun seized following the commission of three Charter violations by the police. The decision is further evidence of the sec. 24(2) Charter pendulum swing - a pattern of court decisions to admit tainted evidence when the severity of the offense outweighs the severity of the Charter violation.
II. Mere Suspicion Bind
Case study: You are a police officer assigned to foot patrol at a large festival in a congested urban area. At 1:00 a.m., a pedestrian tells you that there is a possible disturbance, about one block ahead, involving a crowd of people. You and your partner walk there. You see a large crowd forming. No actual disturbance is in progress but tension obviously exists. One man makes eye contact with you as he "walks away" from the crowd.
How do you investigate this?" Click here for the complete column.
I. Synopsis
"This case imposes the onus on police officers to determine any "significant factors" that affect a young offender's cognitive ability to understand the right to counsel and the waiver of the right to counsel. "Significant factors" include learning disabilities and previous experience with the criminal justice system. In other words, the police have a mandatory obligation to determine if a young offender has a learning disability before deciding on the language to use to instruct him/her of the right to counsel and before an interrogation begins. The 4 key points of this case are as follows:" Click here for the complete column.
The second column: "Frontline Interrogation: Solving the "mere suspicion bind"
R. v. Digiacomo (2008)[1] Admissibility, into evidence, of a loaded gun despite Charter violations
I. Synopsis
This case involves the admission of a loaded gun seized following the commission of three Charter violations by the police. The decision is further evidence of the sec. 24(2) Charter pendulum swing - a pattern of court decisions to admit tainted evidence when the severity of the offense outweighs the severity of the Charter violation.
II. Mere Suspicion Bind
Case study: You are a police officer assigned to foot patrol at a large festival in a congested urban area. At 1:00 a.m., a pedestrian tells you that there is a possible disturbance, about one block ahead, involving a crowd of people. You and your partner walk there. You see a large crowd forming. No actual disturbance is in progress but tension obviously exists. One man makes eye contact with you as he "walks away" from the crowd.
How do you investigate this?" Click here for the complete column.