What is the privilege afforded to private communications between a detained person and his solicitor?

Prowse J.A. delivered the majority opinion in Regina v. Balkan. He stated at p. 63.1: “The privilege afforded confidential communications between a client and his counsel supports the conclusion that the common law attaches a great deal of importance to the right of a person instructing counsel to make a full and frank and confidential disclosure to him in so doing. In my view the suggestion that a detained person must waive that privilege, in order to exercise his rights under the Bill of Rights in such a manner as to make the police witnesses to his conversations with his solicitor, is not in accord with the law. “I am of the opinion that when a detained person requests the right to converse with his counsel in private in the course of retaining and instructing him, his rights at common law and under s. 2(c) (ii) of the Bill of Rights are denied when the police insist in being in a position to overhear the communication between them. If the police were of the view that the respondent might attempt to take a drink of liquor, mouth wash or other substance which might affect the proposed test, then it may well be that they were justified in keeping their eyes on the accused. However, this did not require them to stand in relation to the respondent and his counsel so as to destroy that degree of privacy required to permit the respondent to communicate in confidence with his counsel while making a full, frank disclosure to him.”