R v Bartle, [1994] 3 SCR 173 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to retain and instruct counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that a police officer is required to hold off on his or her investigation upon arresting an individual until the detainee has been informed of his or her rights and given sufficient information and access to contact a private lawyer or duty counsel. The case applied the earlier Supreme Court of Canada decision R v Brydges. The judgment was released with three other decisions: R v Pozniak, R v Harper, R v Matheson and R v Prosper.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| |
rdfs:comment
| - R v Bartle, [1994] 3 SCR 173 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to retain and instruct counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that a police officer is required to hold off on his or her investigation upon arresting an individual until the detainee has been informed of his or her rights and given sufficient information and access to contact a private lawyer or duty counsel. The case applied the earlier Supreme Court of Canada decision R v Brydges. The judgment was released with three other decisions: R v Pozniak, R v Harper, R v Matheson and R v Prosper. (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
Dissent
| - L'Heureux‑Dubé J (en)
- Gonthier J (en)
|
docket
| |
JoinMajority
| - Sopinka, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ (en)
|
citations
| |
history
| - Judgment for the Crown in the Court of Appeal for Ontario (en)
|
majority
| |
ratio
| - Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms places three duties on the police in relation to rights to counsel: the duty to inform a detainee of their rights to counsel; the duty to provide a detainee with a reasonable opportunity to exercise their right; and the duty to hold of questioning until a detainee until that reasonable opportunity has been exercised. The first duty includes advising a detainee of the availability of duty counsel. A detainee must fully understand their rights before they can be waived. (en)
|
has abstract
| - R v Bartle, [1994] 3 SCR 173 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to retain and instruct counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that a police officer is required to hold off on his or her investigation upon arresting an individual until the detainee has been informed of his or her rights and given sufficient information and access to contact a private lawyer or duty counsel. The case applied the earlier Supreme Court of Canada decision R v Brydges. The judgment was released with three other decisions: R v Pozniak, R v Harper, R v Matheson and R v Prosper. (en)
|
case-name
| |
Concurrence
| - La Forest J (en)
- McLachlin J (en)
|
decided-date
| |
full-case-name
| - Kenneth Bartle v Her Majesty the Queen (en)
|
heard-date
| |
ruling
| |
SCC
| |
gold:hypernym
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |