Rights to Counsel: The Role of Police where a Detainee has Problems with Language Comprehension


Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads:
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
[…]
 (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right…
As the Supreme Court held in R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 33, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 460, at para. 38, s. 10(b) imposes two duties on the police – an informational duty and an implementational duty.
The informational duty requires that the detainee be informed of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. The implementational obligation requires the police to provide the detainee with a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel.
The onus lies on the Applicant to demonstrate that his/her right to counsel was violated under s.10(b) of the Charter.
Rights to Counsel and the Role of the Police
In most cases the police may infer that the detainee understands the rights read to them. 
Police do not have a duty to positively ensure that a detainee understands what the rights under s. 10(b) entail. Officers are only required to communicate those rights to the detainee.
R. v. Culotta, 2018 ONCA 665, at para. 38.
Absent special circumstances indicating that a detainee may not understand the s. 10(b) caution (such as language difficulties or a known or obvious mental disability), police are not required to assure themselves that a detainee fully understands the s. 10(b) caution.
R. v. Bartle, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173, at p. 193;
 R. v. Baig, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 537, at p. 540;
R. v. Feeney, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13, at paras. 108-09 per L’Heureux-Dubé (dissenting);
R. v. Evans, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869, at p. 891;
R. v. Willier, 2010 SCC 37, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 429, at para. 31

However, where there is a positive indication that the detainee does not understand his or her rights to counsel, the police cannot rely on a mechanical recitation of those rights.  They must make reasonable efforts to explain those rights to the detainee.
Evans, at p. 892.
“Special circumstances” that invoke an additional duty on the part of the police
Canadian courts have recognized the following as special circumstances where police may be required “to reasonably ascertain” that the detainee understands his/her rights to counsel:
·       Intoxication: where the accused is so intoxicated that he/she cannot comprehend his/her legal rights.
R. v. Mohl (1987), 1987 CanLII 4855 (SK CA), 34 C.C.C. (3d) 435 (Sask. C.A.), rev’d on other grounds 1989 CanLII 101 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1389.
·       Cognitive limitations:
R. v. Evans, 1991 CanLII 98 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869.
·       Problems with Language Comprehension
R. v. Vanstaceghem (1987), 36 C.C.C. (3d) 142 (Ont. C.A.).
·       Emotional Distress
R. v. S.L.H., 2004 BCSC 410 (CanLII).

Language Comprehension
Detainee is not under an affirmative obligation to request language assistance
A detainee is not under an affirmative obligation to request language assistance where it is apparent through his strong accent and laboured responses that he is not proficient in English.
R v Shmoel (1998), 38 WCB (2d) 363 (Ont Prov Ct).
Police are required to ensure that the detainee’s rights are communicated in a “meaningful and comprehensible manner”
Where special circumstances exist, it is incumbent on the police to either arrange for suitable language interpretation or explain the detainee's rights to him slowly and ensure that he comprehends each and every line of the caution.
R v Singh, 2015 ONSC 7376 (CanLII), at para. 10; R v Gayah, 2004 ONCJ 33 (CanLII).
Context may Affect Comprehension
Understanding of language in certain contexts is not the same thing as understanding rights. Just because the Detainee has managed to function in Canadian society when he is not in trouble with the law does not mean that he was able to comprehend what was happening to him in his dealings with the police.
R v Singh, 2015 ONSC 7376 (CanLII), at para. 8; R. v. Blackduck, 2014 NWTSC 58 (CanLII). 

Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca (all rights reserved to author).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more