2 total
Appeal allowed and new trial ordered due to s. 10(b) Charter breach regarding right to counsel.
The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon following a road rage incident.
On appeal, he argued his s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached when police failed to provide a second opportunity to consult counsel after informing him of the additional assault charge.
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the new charge significantly increased his jeopardy and moral blameworthiness.
Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the appellant's police statement under s. 24(2), allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.
Most police statements admitted; one later statement excluded after Charter breach.
The Crown applied for a ruling that several statements made by the accused during police interrogation were voluntary and admissible.
The accused sought a stay of proceedings under the Charter, alleging violations of ss. 7, 8, and 9, including unlawful arrest, an unjustified strip search, and failure to bring him before a justice within 24 hours contrary to s. 503 of the Criminal Code.
The court held the arrest was supported by reasonable and probable grounds and the strip search was justified as incident to custody and conducted reasonably.
Although the police breached s. 503 and the accused’s s. 9 Charter rights by delaying his appearance before a justice, the court found no prejudice warranting a stay.
All statements were admitted as voluntary except for a late oral statement made at 5 p.m., which was excluded.
