No right to lawyer during police interrogation:Supreme Court

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3733
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:32 pm

PostTue Oct 12, 2010 7:26 pm » by Illuminated


CANADA moving towards fascism rapidly!?

No right to lawyer during police interrogation: Supreme Court

By Janice Tibbetts, Postmedia News October 9, 2010 Comments (143)


OTTAWA — A deeply divided Supreme Court of Canada refused Friday to import U.S. "Miranda rights" to Canada, ruling that it would frustrate criminal investigations and slow down the justice system to impose a constitutional guarantee for suspects to have lawyers present during police interrogations.


By a 5-4 margin, the nine-member bench said that the right to counsel entails a phone call and consultation after arrest, but it does not extend to having lawyers in police interview rooms.


"We are not persuaded that the Miranda rule should be transplanted in Canadian soil," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Louise Charron wrote for the majority.


"While the police must be respectful of an individual's Charter rights, a rule that would require the police to automatically retreat upon a detainee stating that he or she has nothing to say would not strike the proper balance between the public interest in the investigation of crimes and the suspect's interest in being left alone."

The majority added that the prevailing view in courts nationwide is that "we should not (and cannot) change the law of Canada so as to forbid the police to talk to a detained suspect unless defence counsel sits in and rules on each question."

Justices Louis LeBel and Morris Fish, writing a biting dissent for the minority, warned that the majority ruling "carries significant and unacceptable consequences for the administration of criminal justice and the constitutional rights of detainees in this country."


The dissenting judges asserted the majority's fear that the administration of justice would grind to a halt is groundless, since it has not come to fruition in the United States in the nearly 50 years since it adopted Miranda rights, despite dire predictions by naysayers at the time.


In a separate dissent, Justice Ian Binnie said that denying suspects the right to counsel during interrogations gives police a "trump card."

The ruling, which was the lead case in one of three similar decisions handed down Friday, was a loss for Trent Terrence Sinclair, who was arrested in Vernon, B.C., and later convicted of manslaughter for the 2003 death of Garry Grice.


The court also handed defeats to killer Stanley James Willier, of High Prairie, Alta., and Donald Russell McCrimmon, who was convicted of assaulting women in Chilliwack, B.C.


The Criminal Lawyers Association, which intervened in Sinclair's appeal, said the decision settle an "open question" that has existed for years in the criminal justice system.


"It's undoubtedly going to produce more unreliable convictions because it will embolden the police to engage in more tricks and coercion as soon as a person gets off the phone with a lawyer, knowing that the person has exhausted their right to get advice," predicted association president Paul Burnstein.

"It will do little or nothing to help protect the public and we know that because the rules in America are much more robust for making sure people who are detained in police custody have access to a lawyer, and it hasn't in any way impeded law enforcement in the U.S. because they have the largest incarceration rate in the free world."


The Supreme Court majority noted that suspects have the right to remain silent during police interrogations, which they said is not touched by the ruling.


The dissenting judges denounced the conclusion, saying the right to counsel and the right to silence are intertwined because skilled police interviewers "time and time again" persist in interrogating suspects until they eventually crack under pressure.


The three men brought separate challenges to the Supreme Court after losing in the appeal courts in their home provinces.


Sinclair was convicted of manslaughter for killing Garry Grice in 2003.


After his arrest in Vernon, B.C., he was advised of his right to counsel and he spoke to a lawyer twice, each time for about three minutes.


He was later interviewed by police for about five hours, and he stated five times during the questioning that he wanted his lawyer present. The officer advised Sinclair he did not have the right to a lawyer and eventually Sinclair implicated himself in Grice's death.

Willier, of High Prairie, Alta., spoke to his lawyer for about three minutes after his arrest, in connection with the murder of his common-law wife. He was later interviewed by police for approximately three hours. He was acquitted in court after his statement was declared inadmissible, but he lost on appeal and a new trial was ordered. The Supreme Court ruling means Willier goes back to trial.


McCrimmon, who was charged on an eight-count indictment of assaulting women during a two-month period in 2005. He failed in his court challenge to his conviction.



Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/right ... z12AMMtQdh
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/right ... z12AMG3mq7
Restoring Sanity and or Keeping Fear Alive! :wink:

Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3733
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:32 pm

PostSun Oct 17, 2010 6:45 pm » by Illuminated



Wrongful conviction
Marshall was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering acquaintance Sandy Seale in 1971. Marshall (age 17) and Seale (age 17) had been walking around Sydney's Wentworth Park during the late evening. They confronted and attempted to panhandle Roy Ebsary, an older man they encountered in the park. A short scuffle occurred and Seale fell mortally wounded by a knife blow which Ebsary delivered. Ebsary admitted that he had stabbed Seale but then lied about his role to the police who immediately focused on Marshall, who was 'known to them' from previous incidents. Police speculated that Marshall, in a rage for some reason, had murdered Seale. From the beginning, the system seemed determined to prove that Marshall was guilty.[3]

Marshall spent 11 years in jail before being acquitted by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in 1983. A witness came forward to say he had seen another man stab Seale, and several prior witness statements pinpointing Marshall were recanted. In this appeal which acquitted him of the previous murder charge, Marshall was assumed to have lied in his first trial about his and Seale's activities on the night of Seale's death. The accusation was that he and Seale had actually approached Ebsary with the intention of robbing him and they were in the park that night. Ebsary was subsequently tried and convicted of manslaughter. When Marshall's conviction was overturned, the presiding judge placed some blame on Marshall for the miscarriage of justice, calling him "the author of his own misfortune."[4] This was viewed as a "serious and fundamental error" by the Royal Commission report. Anne Derrick, Q.C., well-known social justice advocate lawyer, worked as Marshall's counsel,[5] and Order of Canada recipient Clayton Ruby was co-counsel for Marshall, along with Anne Derrick, during the 1989 Royal Commission on Marshall's prosecution.[6]

The Crown Attorney's failure to provide full disclosure (contradictory and coerced statements by witnesses, because they believed the evidence not provided had no bearing in the case) brought about changes in the Canadian rules of evidence regarding disclosure. The prosecution must provide full disclosure without determination on what may be useful to the defence (that is the defence's duty to decide).

[edit] Compensation
Donald Marshall Jr. spent 11 years imprisoned, from 1972 to 1983. He was imprisoned just over half the time of David Milgaard, another Canadian wrongfully convicted. Milgaard received a $10 million settlement, while Marshall received only $250,000.

Also, Donald Marshall Jr.'s conviction resulted in changes to The Evidence Act in Canada. After his conviction, it was amended that any evidence obtained must be presented to the defence on disclosure. Prior to Donald Marshall Jr., Crown Attorney's had discretion to present what they determined to be pertinent to a case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Marshall,_Jr.
Restoring Sanity and or Keeping Fear Alive! :wink:

Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2946
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:23 pm
Location: The beach

PostSun Oct 17, 2010 6:59 pm » by Torofamily


i might not answer every thread you make but i do read every thread you make illuminated.
sometimes theres just nothing to add
we both kind of look for the same things, corruption

anyway dude keep on keeping on , let them all know whats really going on

peace
ImageWE ARE THE GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING ! Image

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10713
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:08 am

PostSun Oct 17, 2010 7:20 pm » by Boondox681


thanx.this is bullshit.
remember,you don't need a lawyer to NOT say anything.

i don't know anything about this but it sounds like a case of...
'old,grey-haired,white guys fucking it up for everyone'

am i correct?
Image
"Doing stuff is overrated.Like Hitler.He did a lot.But don't we all wish he woulda' just stayed home and gotten stoned?"



  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook