The appellant challenged a murder conviction arising from the admission of derivative evidence obtained after prolonged police interrogation and a plea bargain offer made while his counsel was unavailable.
The Court held that the police violated s. 10(b) by continuing to question the accused after repeated requests for counsel, undermining defence counsel, and presenting a plea bargain directly to the accused without counsel present.
Applying the Collins framework under s. 24(2), the majority excluded the gun, the fact of its discovery, related identification evidence, and the accused's statement to a third party because the evidence would not have been obtained but for the Charter breach.
A stay was refused, but the conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.
The curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) did not apply.
