No right to a lawyer during interrogation, Supreme Court rules

[Pompal 09.]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rrogation-supreme-court-rules/article1749557/

Suspects in serious crimes do not have a right to consult their lawyer during a police interrogation, the Supreme Court of Canada said today. The issue split the Court into two distinct factions, with the majority asserting that suspects cannot expect to halt an intense or heated interrogation in order to obtain ongoing legal advice.

A five-judge majority firmly sided with the police, saying that a suspect who has been granted his right to consult with counsel prior to an interrogation cannot later insist on seeing his lawyer again simply because he doesn’t like the way things are going.
Defence counsel condemned the rulings as being out-of-touch with the reality of law enforcement.

 

[harleycharley]

Well that is a first for Canada. Glad to hear we are not giving in to the bad guys anymore.

 

[=0) Exotic Motorcyclist]

I agree to a certain point, but what about if you are an innocent guy found at the wrong place at the wrong time. The police can shake you down pretty good if you are not familiar with the interrogation tactics.

 

[Kim C]

I hear you Rayden. Tough to trust anyone these days. People with too much power overdue it and it gets to their heads. Like our cops. sorry Maurice.

 

[The Naysayer]

I heard on the news though that you can still invoke your right to remain silent during such interrogations.

In Canada, it isn't exactly referred to as a right to remain silent.

Section 11(c) of the Charter says that 'Any Person charged with an offence has the right:

(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;'

So you repeat "I can't be compelled to be a witness against myself" ad nauseam if you wish not to talk to the cops.