This just in - No right to lawyer during questioning, says top court

[dunnochit]

OTTAWA—The American Miranda rule that gives a suspect the right to have a lawyer present during questioning has no place here, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.

In three related decisions, a sharply divided court fine-tuned the rules on suspects’ right to counsel.

In the main case, the justices ruled 5-4 that the Charter of Rights does not confer a right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.

That means Miranda, a staple of TV cop shows where lawyers whisper to their clients while detectives ask questions, does not apply.

The court also held that suspects have no right to interrupt an interrogation to consult again with a lawyer except in some limited circumstances.

They said that while suspects generally have the right to a lawyer of their choice, they must accept another if they cannot contact their own within a reasonable time.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Louise Charron wrote for the majority in all three cases.

Justices Morris Fish and Louis Lebel wrote sharp dissents in two of the three cases, with Justice Rosalie Abella concurring. Justice Ian Binnie contributed his own dissent in the main decision.

The rest of the Story
http://tinyurl.com/2bk2lts
D

 

[Horse99]

Isn't it nice that FIVE unelected people are allowed to make this kind of decision?

 

[Horse99]

I've been interogated by vicious, vindictive police and therefore dont like this. I was fine, since I know my rights and think quick on my feet, others are not so lucky and can easily be manipulated. Having someone present that knows the law and has your best interests at heart should be a right.

yup,,,there is that court case now whereby the creepy Border guard was strip searching females.....who is going to assert their rights when all you want to do is get home? These a-holes who abuse their power, need to be curbed

 

[juniper]

Re unelected judges: Judges on the Supreme Court of America are, similarly to Canada, appointed, not elected. There is a level of Court in the USA where judges are elected as are other law officers such as sheriffs. While this may appear very democratic, you can see the problem of judges and other legal officials pandering to the public in order to get re-elected as opposed to having fewer distractions because they are appointed for (life) a long period of time. The problem with appointments, of course, is that such appointments are subject to political inclinations as opposed to appointing judges whose knowledge base, writing abilities, analytical skills and ability to perceive situations objectively, etc., being the main concern.

 

[MissingOne]

As you can see, there is little room for politics in the process. The Privy Council presents the list of eligible judges to the Governor General who creates a short list for consultation with the Prime Minister. Since 3 must be from Quebec, 3 are from Ontario, 1 is from BC, 1 is from the Prairies and 1 is from the Atlantic Superior Courts; the Government of the day seldom has the ability to appoint a judge who is a supporter of their political party.

That certainly isn't how I read that. The Privy council is headed by the Prime Minister, and he or she presents a list to the Governor General. And what Prime Minister couldn't find 1 to 3 lawyers in any given province who support the Prime Minister's views?

I do agree, though, that electing judges and law officers is not a good idea. How many of us can make a really well-informed decision about who should be a judge?

 

[jnewton]

This is what comes of being Subjects whose rights are granted by Man (ultimately, the Crown) instead of Citizens whose rights are granted by God (or Nature). That's why the US Declaration of Independence was and still is such a radical document. It asserts that there are fundamental rights inherent in us as human beings, rights we have as children of God or Nature and not subject to the whims of Man. Yes, we can argue about slavery but the abysmal failure to initially live up to the Declaration doesn't invalidate the truths contained therein.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

The first thing a lawyer will do when you contact him after you've been arrested is advise you to tell them you have nothing to say. If you're smart, you'll take the advice. (Bad time to be pulling a JPR. lol)