40:
261:
At the outset of the questioning, Sinclair said he would not answer the police officer's questions until his lawyer was present and could advise him. The police officer confirmed with
Sinclair that he had the right not to speak. The police officer also advised Sinclair that his understanding of the law in Canada was that he had the right to speak to a lawyer, but not to have a lawyer present during questioning. Sinclair accepted the officer's statement, and the interview continued.
453:
Justice Binnie found that
Sinclair's requests to speak to his lawyer again did not become reasonable until he had been interrogated for a number of hours and had been advised that there was "absolutely overwhelming" evidence against him. As a result, Sinclair's rights were breached. The admission to
394:
Given the purpose of the right to counsel, the majority found that the purpose can be exercised when a detainee is given access to speak to counsel when circumstances change. There is no need for counsel to be present during an interrogation for the right to counsel to be properly exercised (although
352:
The majority found that the purpose of the right to speak with counsel is "to allow the detainee not only to be informed of his rights and obligations under the law but, equally if not more important, to obtain advice as to how to exercise those rights." In the context of a police interrogation, the
260:
Later that day, Sinclair was questioned by the police for five hours. Prior to the start of the questioning, Sinclair confirmed that he exercised his right to counsel, and the police warned
Sinclair that he did not have to say anything and that interview would be recorded and could be used in court.
432:
The majority went on to find that the change in circumstances must be objectively observable, and cannot be claimed by a detainee after the fact. The majority also found that if the right to reconsult was triggered every time a detainee person requests to reconsult his lawyer, the police would be
356:
In his dissenting decision, Justice Binnie found that the purpose of the right to counsel is to help a detainee understand his or her rights as well as how to exercise those rights in dealing with the authorities. Binnie pointed out that if the purpose of the right to counsel was just to echo what
178:
Specifically, the case addresses two issues regarding the police's implementation duty under the right to counsel: 1) does a detainee have the right to have a lawyer present during police questioning, and 2) does a detainee have the right to make multiple phone calls to their lawyer. A majority of
440:
In their dissenting decision, LeBel and Fish JJ. found that a detainee had the right to reconsult with counsel at his or her request, and that police can continue the interrogation after the right has been properly exercised. The dissent also disagreed with Binnie J.'s decision, as the power to
409:
The majority found that given the purpose of the right to counsel, a detainee has the right to reconsult with counsel if there has been a change of circumstances such that the initial legal advice would no longer be adequate. The majority provided the following, non-exhaustive list of possible
268:
During the interview, the police officer revealed details of the crime that implicated
Sinclair. Some of those details were false. Sinclair responded by saying he had nothing to say and would not be talking, and that he wanted to talk to his lawyer about what the officer was saying. The officer
264:
As the interview progressed, Sinclair repeated that he wanted his lawyer present. The officer repeated that
Sinclair had the right not to speak, and that Sinclair's right to counsel was exercised by his phone calls. Sinclair again accepted the officer's statements, and the interview continued.
249:
Upon his arrest and being advised of the reason for his arrest, Sinclair was given his rights to counsel. Sinclair indicated that he wanted to speak to a specific lawyer. The police placed a call to that lawyer and allowed
Sinclair to speak to the lawyer over the phone in a private room. Three
449:
The majority found that there had been no change in
Sinclair's circumstances that would have justified the need for him to receive further advice from counsel. It appeared that Sinclair fully understood his right that it was his choice whether to talk or remain silent. Therefore, the majority
454:
the undercover officer and the re-enactment were also tainted by the breach. Since there is a presumption against admission of unconstitutionally obtained statements, Binnie J. would have excluded the statements from evidence, and would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
298:. The trial judge found that the three statements (interview, cell, and re-enactment) were voluntary, and that Sinclair's right to counsel was satisfied when he spoke with his lawyer over the phone. The statements were admitted into evidence, and Sinclair was found guilty of
436:
In his dissenting decision, Binnie J. endorsed an intermediate position where a detainee makes a request to reconsult counsel when it is reasonable in the circumstances. Although Binnie J. did not define what is reasonable, he provided a non-exhaustive list of factors.
282:
officer. Sinclair told the undercover officer: "They've got me, the body, the sheets, the blood, the fibres on the carpet, the witnesses. I'm going away for a long time but I feel relieved." Sinclair explained he would not be looking over his shoulder for the police.
457:
Justices LeBel and Fish found that by not allowing
Sinclair to speak to his lawyer again after multiple requests, his rights were breached, and the admission to the undercover officer and the re-enactment were tainted. Applying the test from
195:
257:
yet. However, he asked to speak to
Sinclair again, and the two spoke privately over the phone for another three minutes. Sinclair again told the police he was satisfied with the phone call.
250:
minutes later, Sinclair indicated that he had completed his phone call. When asked by the police if he was satisfied with the phone call, Sinclair replied "Yeah, he's taking my case."
357:
the police had already said, regardless of what may emerge during the course of the interrogation, then the role of counsel could be replaced with the following recorded message:
253:
Three hours later, the police called the lawyer to see if he was coming to the police station to meet
Sinclair. The lawyer replied that he was not, as he did not have a
539:
169:
363:
Justice Binnie found that between the majority's interpretation in this case, and the Court's decision in prior cases regarding police interrogations (i.e.
378:
In their dissenting decision, Justices LeBel and Fish found that the purpose of the right to counsel was broader, and that it includes advising a detainee
275:
The police officer's questioning continued. Sinclair eventually admitted to stabbing the victim multiple times and disposing of the body and evidence.
272:
At one point in the interview, Sinclair indicated that he was uncertain what he should say, and that he would like some time to speak with his lawyer.
508:
269:
replied by again repeating that it was Sinclair's choice whether he wanted to speak or not. This happened four or five times during the interview.
353:
purpose of the right is to support a detainee's right whether or not to cooperate with the police by giving the detainee access to legal advice.
217:
179:
the Court answered the first question in the negative, and answered the second question in the negative, subject to a change of circumstances.
116:(2) A detainee does not generally have the right to have additional phone calls with counsel, unless there has been a change of circumstances.
554:
211:
199:
371:
544:
414:
New, non-routine procedures, that the advising lawyer would not have expected at the time of the original consultation (i.e. a
478:
203:
183:
441:
decide when a detainee should be allowed to speak to their counsel should not be left in the hands of the interrogator.
191:
549:
295:
398:
Justice Binnie agreed with the majority that there was no right to have counsel present during a police interview.
311:
93:
17:
235:
187:
521:
161:
464:, they would have excluded the statements from evidence, allow the appeal, and order a new trial...
503:
239:
499:
165:
45:
473:
134:
McLachlin C.J. and Charron J. (paras. 1-75), joined by Deschampes, Rothstein, and Cromwell JJ.
114:(1) A detainee does not have the right to have counsel present during a police interrogation.
286:
Sinclair later went with the police to the scene of the crime and re-enacted what happened.
8:
326:
254:
71:
39:
209:
The case was part of a trilogy of cases released by the Supreme Court, along with
359:
You have reached counsel; keep your mouth shut; press one to repeat this message.
330:
410:
change of circumstances that would require further consultation with counsel:
533:
419:
317:
Sinclair was later granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
299:
182:
The parties to the case were the appellant, Sinclair, the respondent, the
342:
338:
333:
Two separate dissenting decisions were also released: one was written by
484:
428:
Reason to believe the detainee did not understand his right to counsel.
334:
279:
460:
415:
389:
365:
369:, 2007 SCC 48), the police have more power over a detainee than the
395:
nothing prevents counsel from being present if both sides agree).
401:
Justices LeBel and Fish did not explicitly deal with this issue.
314:. The court was unanimous in holding up Sinclair's conviction.
243:
278:
After the interview, Sinclair was placed in a cell with an
234:
On December 14, 2002, Trent Sinclair was arrested by the
433:
giving up control of the interrogation to the detainee.
150:
LeBel and Fish JJ. (paras. 123-227), joined by Abella J.
404:
390:Right to have counsel present during interrogation
540:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms case law
531:
65:Trent Terrence Sinclair v Her Majesty the Queen
386:their rights should be effectively exercised.
347:
200:British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
444:
229:
192:Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada
196:Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario
320:
172:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
168:on a detainee's right to counsel under
14:
532:
425:Change in jeopardy (i.e. new charges).
479:List of Supreme Court of Canada cases
325:The majority decision was co-written
186:, and the following interveners: the
555:Canadian criminal procedure case law
204:Canadian Civil Liberties Association
184:Attorney General of British Columbia
522:SCC Case Information - Docket 32537
24:
25:
566:
492:
296:Supreme Court of British Columbia
337:and the other was co-written by
312:British Columbia Court of Appeal
310:The appeal was heard before the
94:British Columbia Court of Appeal
38:
405:Right to reconsult with counsel
515:
92:Judgment for the Crown in the
13:
1:
545:Supreme Court of Canada cases
236:Royal Canadian Mounted Police
224:
294:The trial took place at the
27:Supreme Court of Canada case
7:
467:
348:Purpose of right to counsel
188:Attorney General of Ontario
164:is a leading case from the
10:
571:
550:2010 in Canadian case law
305:
146:
142:Binnie J. (paras. 76-122)
138:
130:
125:
120:
113:
108:
100:
88:
80:
70:
60:
56:Judgment: October 8, 2010
53:
37:
32:
445:Application to the facts
289:
240:Vernon, British Columbia
524:Supreme Court of Canada
500:Supreme Court of Canada
230:Events following arrest
166:Supreme Court of Canada
46:Supreme Court of Canada
474:Criminal law of Canada
450:dismissed the appeal.
54:Hearing: May 12, 2009
170:section 10(b) of the
321:Reasons of the court
509:Respondent's factum
242:in relation to the
154:
153:
16:(Redirected from
562:
525:
519:
360:
121:Court membership
104:appeal dismissed
42:
30:
29:
21:
570:
569:
565:
564:
563:
561:
560:
559:
530:
529:
528:
520:
516:
495:
470:
447:
407:
392:
358:
350:
323:
308:
292:
246:of Gary Grice.
232:
227:
115:
55:
49:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
568:
558:
557:
552:
547:
542:
527:
526:
513:
512:
511:
506:
494:
493:External links
491:
490:
489:
481:
476:
469:
466:
446:
443:
430:
429:
426:
423:
406:
403:
391:
388:
349:
346:
327:McLachlin C.J.
322:
319:
307:
304:
291:
288:
238:detachment in
231:
228:
226:
223:
152:
151:
148:
144:
143:
140:
136:
135:
132:
128:
127:
123:
122:
118:
117:
111:
110:
106:
105:
102:
98:
97:
90:
86:
85:
82:
78:
77:
74:
68:
67:
62:
61:Full case name
58:
57:
51:
50:
43:
35:
34:
26:
18:R. v. Sinclair
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
567:
556:
553:
551:
548:
546:
543:
541:
538:
537:
535:
523:
518:
514:
510:
507:
505:
501:
498:Full text of
497:
496:
488:, 2 S.C.R. 3
487:
486:
482:
480:
477:
475:
472:
471:
465:
463:
462:
455:
451:
442:
438:
434:
427:
424:
421:
417:
413:
412:
411:
402:
399:
396:
387:
385:
381:
376:
374:
373:
368:
367:
361:
354:
345:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
318:
315:
313:
303:
301:
297:
287:
284:
281:
276:
273:
270:
266:
262:
258:
256:
251:
247:
245:
241:
237:
222:
220:
219:
218:R v McCrimmon
214:
213:
207:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
180:
176:
174:
173:
167:
163:
160:
159:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
126:Reasons given
124:
119:
112:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
89:Prior history
87:
83:
79:
75:
73:
69:
66:
63:
59:
52:
48:
47:
41:
36:
31:
19:
517:
502:decision at
483:
459:
456:
452:
448:
439:
435:
431:
420:photo lineup
408:
400:
397:
393:
383:
379:
377:
370:
364:
362:
355:
351:
324:
316:
309:
300:manslaughter
293:
285:
277:
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
252:
248:
233:
216:
210:
208:
181:
177:
171:
158:R v Sinclair
157:
156:
155:
76:2 S.C.R. 310
64:
44:
33:R v Sinclair
212:R v Willier
162:2010 SCC 35
534:Categories
485:R v Oickle
375:intended.
331:Charron J.
280:undercover
225:Background
202:, and the
81:Docket No.
461:R v Grant
416:polygraph
366:R v Singh
335:Binnie J.
72:Citations
468:See also
422:, etc.).
343:Fish JJ.
255:retainer
131:Majority
372:Charter
147:Dissent
139:Dissent
109:Holding
306:Appeal
244:murder
198:, the
194:, the
190:, the
101:Ruling
84:32537
504:LexUM
339:LeBel
290:Trial
418:, a
382:and
341:and
329:and
215:and
384:how
380:why
536::
302:.
221:.
206:.
175:.
96:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
