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).
