The accused maintains his Section 10(a) rights were violated by the officers’ failure to advise him of the grounds for the detention and the failure to advise him of his Charter rights. It is also apparent that the officers questioned the accused before advising of his rights in an attempt to gather evidence against him. Even after the accused was arrested, Chartered and warned, the officers continued to ask him incriminating questions despite his expressed desire to consult with legal counsel in violation of Section 10(b). In support of this position the accused relies upon Smith v. The Queen (1991) 1991 CanLII 91 (SCC), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 313 (S.C.C.), Regina v. Evans 1991 CanLII 98 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869, and Regina v. Manninen 1987 CanLII 67 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.