302:. This section states one must be "informed promptly of the reasons" for detention or arrest. The Court found section 10(a) was not infringed. Section 10(a) is meant to ensure those arrested or detained are aware of the gravity of the situation. Latimer argued that since the police did not call the detention an arrest, he was not fully aware of how serious the trouble he was in was. He also claimed this was the reason why he had declined to talk to a lawyer. Again, the Court argued the words used did not matter, but rather how the suspect can interpret the situation. Latimer could be expected to understand the seriousness of the situation since he was told he was being detained in connection with Tracy's death. The police had explicitly said the situation was serious, and had told him of rights one has when being arrested.
245:. The police then visited Latimer's farm and detained him. The police had said they wanted to talk with Mr. Latimer, and he got into the car with them. An officer then told Latimer he was in a serious situation, he was being detained due to Tracy's death, and that Latimer had a right to counsel and legal aid. Latimer replied that he understood but declined to contact a lawyer immediately. He also wanted to put on different clothes, and the police let him, but they told him they would walk with him into the house as he was now in their custody. During the questioning, the police told Latimer once again that he had rights to counsel and a
29:
295:; the detention fit the definition of a proper arrest even though the police never called it one. The description of the incident as a detention, the police making it clear that he was in their custody by walking him into the house so he could put on different clothes, and Latimer's acceptance that the police were in control were enough for Latimer to understand he was being arrested.
330:
Still, the
Supreme Court ordered a new trial. As the Court wrote, the Crown counsel's actions during jury selection "were nothing short of a flagrant abuse of process and interference with the administration of justice". The justice system demanded justice and transparency, and the trial was lacking
287:, who emphasized at the outset that his decision would not deal with the ethical controversies surrounding what Latimer claimed to have been a mercy killing. Latimer also claimed his detention was arbitrary and therefore breached section 9 of the
249:, and he declined to ask for a lawyer. After an officer said he was convinced Latimer had killed his daughter, Latimer confessed. He was then charged with murder, after writing a confession that he was told could lead to a murder charge.
323:. However, Saskatchewan happened to have different hours during which one could make a free telephone call to directly obtain duty counsel. The arrest occurred at a time when it was not available; therefore the right established in
319:, through a free telephone call. Although Latimer was told that legal aid existed, he was not told that he could make a free telephone call and obtain advice from duty counsel right away. Latimer argued this contradicted
102:
Section 10(a) of the
Charter requires that one be made aware of the seriousness of the situation; Section 10(b) is not breached when one is not told of a means of accessing duty counsel that is not available at the
268:(matters related to Tracy's death, which Latimer claimed was a mercy killing). Some of candidates who were queried ultimately ended up on the jury. Latimer was found guilty, and the
218:
190:
200:
305:
Finally, the case involved section 10(b), the right "to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right". The Court noted it had found in
403:
298:
The Court then turned to whether the police's decision not to tell Mr. Latimer he was being arrested and could face a murder charge breached section 10(a) of the
291:. The Court decided the detention was not arbitrary, as it was carried out because it seemed likely that Latimer was guilty. These were valid grounds for an
272:
upheld the trial decision. It was only after the Court of Appeal's decision that the Crown's actions during jury selection came to light.
195:
418:
433:
189:
farmer convicted of murdering his disabled daughter Tracy. The case involved consideration of arbitrary detention under
65:
1 SCR 217, 1997 CanLII 405, 142 DLR (4th) 577, 2 WWR 525, 112 CCC (3d) 193, 41 CRR (2d) 281, 4 CR (5th) 1, 152 Sask R 1
423:
413:
82:
207:
stage. As a result, the decision was the first given by the
Supreme Court in the Latimer case, the second being
388:
257:
428:
408:
269:
214:
203:. The Supreme Court ultimately overturned Latimer's conviction due to the Crown's improper actions at the
346:
127:
260:
intervened to query candidates for the jury on their positions regarding controversial matters such as
384:
380:
281:
178:
34:
8:
123:
261:
143:
60:
28:
311:
that rights to be informed that one may seek counsel included rights to be told of
246:
135:
238:
147:
204:
182:
397:
284:
253:
151:
116:
312:
234:
186:
131:
209:
307:
265:
199:
and rights to an explanation for detention and rights to counsel under
139:
241:
in 1993, became the target of the police's suspicion after Tracy's
242:
327:
was inapplicable in this case, as it would have been of no use.
292:
404:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms case law
395:
16:Supreme Court of Canada case on right to counsel
233:Latimer, who had poisoned his 12-year-old
92:Conviction overturned, new trial ordered
54:Robert W Latimer v Her Majesty The Queen
196:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
396:
252:When the jury was being selected, the
177:, 1 SCR 217, was a decision by the
347:SCC Case Information - Docket 24818
13:
14:
445:
373:
83:Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
27:
361:
352:
340:
81:Judgment for the Crown in the
1:
419:Supreme Court of Canada cases
334:
258:Royal Canadian Mounted Police
228:
181:in the controversial case of
280:The decision was written by
270:Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
215:cruel and unusual punishment
7:
275:
43:Hearing: November 27, 1996
10:
450:
434:Canadian criminal case law
45:Judgment: February 6, 1997
424:1997 in Canadian case law
162:
157:
112:
107:
101:
96:
88:
77:
69:
59:
49:
42:
26:
21:
414:Disability law in Canada
381:Supreme Court of Canada
349:Supreme Court of Canada
179:Supreme Court of Canada
35:Supreme Court of Canada
315:and how to obtain it;
128:Claire L'Heureux-Dubé
163:Unanimous reasons by
429:Euthanasia case law
409:Disability case law
144:Beverley McLachlin
170:
169:
441:
368:
365:
359:
356:
350:
344:
331:in this regard.
247:right to silence
136:Charles Gonthier
124:GĂ©rard La Forest
121:Puisne Justices:
108:Court membership
31:
19:
18:
449:
448:
444:
443:
442:
440:
439:
438:
394:
393:
376:
371:
366:
362:
357:
353:
345:
341:
337:
278:
239:carbon monoxide
231:
148:Frank Iacobucci
119:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
447:
437:
436:
431:
426:
421:
416:
411:
406:
392:
391:
375:
374:External links
372:
370:
369:
360:
351:
338:
336:
333:
277:
274:
237:daughter with
230:
227:
205:jury selection
183:Robert Latimer
168:
167:
164:
160:
159:
155:
154:
114:Chief Justice:
110:
109:
105:
104:
99:
98:
94:
93:
90:
86:
85:
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
446:
435:
432:
430:
427:
425:
422:
420:
417:
415:
412:
410:
407:
405:
402:
401:
399:
390:
386:
382:
379:Full text of
378:
377:
364:
355:
348:
343:
339:
332:
328:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:
303:
301:
296:
294:
290:
286:
285:Antonio Lamer
283:
282:Chief Justice
273:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
254:Crown counsel
250:
248:
244:
240:
236:
226:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:
206:
202:
198:
197:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
175:
165:
161:
158:Reasons given
156:
153:
152:John C. Major
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
122:
118:
117:Antonio Lamer
115:
111:
106:
100:
95:
91:
87:
84:
80:
78:Prior history
76:
72:
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
383:decision at
363:
354:
342:
329:
324:
320:
316:
313:duty counsel
306:
304:
299:
297:
288:
279:
251:
235:quadriplegic
232:
222:
208:
194:
187:Saskatchewan
173:
172:
171:
132:John Sopinka
120:
113:
53:
33:
367:3 SCR 173 .
210:R v Latimer
174:R v Latimer
22:R v Latimer
398:Categories
387: and
335:References
308:R v Bartle
266:euthanasia
229:Background
219:section 12
201:section 10
140:Peter Cory
70:Docket No.
191:section 9
61:Citations
358:1 SCR 3.
276:Decision
262:abortion
166:Lamer CJ
300:Charter
289:Charter
243:autopsy
223:Charter
221:of the
193:of the
97:Holding
389:CanLII
325:Bartle
321:Bartle
293:arrest
217:under
89:Ruling
73:24818
385:LexUM
317:i.e.
264:and
256:and
185:, a
103:time
213:on
400::
225:.
150:,
146:,
142:,
138:,
134:,
130:,
126:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
