C. David Hughes

The Crown appealed from a decision upholding a stay of proceedings granted after the accused's dismissal from employment.

The central issue was whether the circumstances amounted to a violation of the accused's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or an abuse of process justifying a stay.

The Court held that the governing authority was Vermette and found no Charter breach and no abuse of process on the facts.

The appeal was allowed, the judgments below were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant, while highly intoxicated, was charged with her husband's murder and informed of her right to counsel.

She stated there was 'no point' in having counsel and was interrogated by police despite her aunt's requests to wait for a lawyer.

The trial judge excluded her inculpatory statements because she lacked the capacity to understand the consequences of making them, leading to an acquittal.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, applying the 'operating mind' test.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that a valid waiver of the section 10(b) Charter right to counsel requires a true appreciation of the consequences.

The police's deliberate exploitation of the appellant's intoxicated state violated her rights, and the evidence was excluded under section 24(2).