R. v. Burlingham (T.W.) (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC);
96 W.A.C. 161
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Terrence Wayne Burlingham (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(No. 23966)
Indexed As: R. v. Burlingham (T.W.)
Supreme Court of Canada
La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
May 18, 1995.
Summary:
The accused was convicted of first degree murder. He appealed his conviction.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, McEachern, C.J.B.C., dissenting, in a decision reported 35 B.C.A.C. 81; 57 W.A.C. 81, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed again, raising issues respecting the right to counsel during the plea bargaining process and the appropriate remedy where an accused’s right to counsel is violated.
The Supreme Court of Canada, L’Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial.
Civil Rights – Topic 4602
Right to counsel – Denial of – Evidence taken inadmissible – The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the principles applicable to exclusion of evidence under s. 24 of the Charter and in particular where evidence was obtained as a result of the denial of the right to counsel – The court discussed the evolution of the test set out by the Supreme Court in R. v. Collins – See paragraphs 24 to 32, 58 to 74 – L’Heureux-Dubé, J., in a dissenting judgment, expressed a differing view on how s. 24 should be applied – See paragraphs 78 to 157.
Civil Rights – Topic 4602
Right to counsel – Denial of – Evidence taken inadmissible – Following “wilful and flagrant” violations of counsel rights by police during interrogation and plea bargaining, the accused confessed to a homicide, revealed the murder site and the gun’s location – He also told his girlfriend he spoke to police and knew something about the murder – He was convicted of first degree murder – The Supreme Court of Canada directed a new trial, in which all the derivative evidence obtained by police because of the Charter infringement would be excluded under s. 24, including part of the girlfriend’s testimony, evidence that the police found the gun in the river, testimony identifying the murder weapon, and the gun itself – The accused’s confession and gestures and directions to police respecting the gun’s location were also inadmissible – See paragraphs 24 to 56.
Civil Rights – Topic 4602
Right to counsel – Denial of – Evidence taken inadmissible – [See first
Criminal Law – Topic 5044
].
Civil Rights – Topic 4604
Right to counsel – Denial of – What constitutes – For four days, police intensively interrogated the accused respecting a murder, over protestations that he wanted to consult counsel first – On the fourth day, the police told him that if he co-operated, he would be charged with second instead of first degree murder – He confessed and provided other information – Thereafter, the police told him that the deal was actually for him to plead guilty to second degree murder – He refused to plead guilty and was convicted of first degree murder – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused’s counsel rights were violated by: (1) continual questioning after assertion of his counsel rights; (2) belittlement of defence counsel to undermine the accused’s confidence; and (3) improper police conduct respecting the plea bargain – See paragraphs 12 to 23.
Civil Rights – Topic 4609.1
Right to counsel – Duty of police investigators – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 4604
].
Civil Rights – Topic 4656.2
Right to counsel – Entitlement – During plea bargaining – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the content of an accused’s right to counsel during the plea bargaining process – See paragraphs 12 to 23 – The court stated, inter alia, that s. 10(b) of the Charter “… mandates the Crown or police, whenever offering a plea bargain, to tender that offer either to accused’s counsel or to the accused while in the presence of his or her counsel, unless the accused has expressly waived the right to counsel. It is consequently a constitutional infringement to place such an offer directly to an accused, especially (as in the present appeal) when the police coercively leave it open only for the short period of time during which they know defence counsel to be unavailable” – See paragraph 21.
Civil Rights – Topic 4656.2
Right to counsel – Entitlement – During plea bargaining – The accused was detained for murder – While his counsel was unavailable, the police told him that if he co-operated, he would be charged with second instead of first degree murder – The accused was allowed to contact another lawyer – Nevertheless, the accused confessed and showed police the murder site etc. – He was then told that the deal was actually for him to plead guilty to second degree murder – The accused refused to plead guilty and was convicted of first degree murder – The Supreme Court of Canada held that allowing the accused to call a random lawyer was, given the seriousness of the situation he faced and in the circumstances, insufficient for the officers to discharge their s. 10(b) responsibilities – See paragraphs 15 to 23.
Civil Rights – Topic 4656.2
Right to counsel – Entitlement – During plea bargaining – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 4604
].
Civil Rights – Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of rights – Remedies – Exclusion of evidence – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “… we should never lose sight of the fact that even a person accused of the most heinous crimes, and no matter the likelihood that he actually committed those crimes, is entitled to the full protection of the Charter. Short-cutting or short-circuiting those rights affects not only the accused, but also the entire reputation of the criminal justice system. It must be emphasized that the goals of preserving the integrity of the criminal justice system as well as promoting the decency of investigatory techniques are of fundamental importance in applying s. 24(2) [of the Charter]. These goals operate independently of the type of crime for which the individual stands accused” – See paragraphs 50, 51.
Civil Rights – Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of rights – Remedies – Exclusion of evidence – [See first and second
Civil Rights – Topic 4602
and both
Criminal Law – Topic 5044
].
Civil Rights – Topic 8374
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of rights – Remedies – Stay of proceedings – As a result of violations of an accused’s counsel rights by police during interrogation and plea bargaining, the accused confessed to a homicide and provided police with other information – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the remedy for this Charter violation was a new trial in which the evidence obtained as a result of the Charter violation would be excluded – The court held that this was not an appropriate case for a stay of proceedings, stating that “stays should only be limited to the ‘clearest of cases’ …” – See paragraph 24.
Criminal Law – Topic 4231
Procedure – Pleas – Plea bargaining – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “… to the extent that the plea bargain is an integral element of the Canadian criminal process, the Crown and its officers engaged in the plea bargaining process must act honourably and forthrightly” – See paragraph 23.
Criminal Law – Topic 4231
Procedure – Pleas – Plea bargaining – [See first
Civil Rights – Topic 4656.2
].
Criminal Law – Topic 5044
Appeals – Indictable offences – Dismissal of appeal if error resulted in no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice – Where error is violation of Charter right – As a result of violations of an accused’s counsel rights by police during interrogation and plea bargaining, the accused confessed to a homicide and provided the police with other incriminating information – He was convicted of first degree murder – The Supreme Court of Canada directed a new trial in which all the derivative evidence obtained by police because of the Charter infringement would be excluded under s. 24 – Further, this was not a case where the curative provision in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code could be applied – See paragraphs 52 to 54, 76 and 145 to 155.
Criminal Law – Topic 5044
Appeals – Indictable offences – Dismissal of appeal if error resulted in no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice – Where error is violation of Charter right – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it was “… reluctant to open the door to the possibility that it shall become commonplace for an accused to prove a Charter breach sufficient to impugn the repute of the administration of justice and then have s. 686(1)(b)(iii) [of the Criminal Code] deny that person the opportunity to have a fair trial in which he or she shall face evidence obtained in a constitutional manner. Consideration should be given to limiting the Elshaw exception only to cases in which it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the impugned evidence excluded under s. 24(2) in light of a Charter violation did not contribute at all to the original verdict …” – See paragraph 53.
Criminal Law – Topic 5045
Appeals – Indictable offences – Dismissal of appeal if error resulted in no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice – What constitutes a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice – [See both
Criminal Law – Topic 5044
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 13, 98].
R. v. Matheson (R.N.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 328; 172 N.R. 108; 123 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 382 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124; 74 C.R.(3d) 129; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 330; [1990] 2 W.W.R. 220; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Evans (W.G.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 4 C.R.(4th) 144; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 315, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. W.K.L., [1989] B.C.J. No. 1700 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1991] 1 S.C.R. 1091; 124 N.R. 146, refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, consd. [para. 25 et seq.].
R. v. Gladstone (1985), 22 C.C.C.(3d) 151 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61, refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Wigman, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 246; 75 N.R. 51; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; 131 N.R. 118; 120 A.R. 189; 8 W.A.C. 189; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 308, refd to. [paras. 29, 138].
R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [paras. 29, 67, 138].
R. v. Elshaw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 24; 128 N.R. 241; 3 B.C.A.C. 81; 7 W.A.C. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 143, consd. [paras. 29, 72, 146].
R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 67 C.R.(3d) 209, refd to. [paras. 30, 64, 97].
R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 31, 71, 98].
Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 31, 64, 98].
R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 32, 67, 107].
R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281; 93 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 242 A.P.R. 35; 70 C.R.(3d) 97; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 47 C.R.R. 171, dist. [para. 35].
R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479; 67 C.R.(3d) 87; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 673, refd to. [paras. 40, 72, 134].
R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 42, 72].
R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 173, refd to. [para. 42].
R. v. Pozniak (W.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 310; 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232, refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 45].
R. v. Bevan and Griffith, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 599; 154 N.R. 245; 64 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [paras. 52, 145].
R. v. Hodge (P.E.) (1993), 133 N.B.R.(2d) 240; 341 A.P.R. 240 (C.A.), dist. [paras. 52, 151].
R. v. John, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 476; 63 N.R. 141; 11 O.A.C. 391, refd to. [paras. 54, 152].
R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 67 C.R.(3d) 224; 37 C.R.R. 252, refd to. [para. 65].
R. v. Rothman, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640; 35 N.R. 485; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 30, refd to. [paras. 67, 90].
R. v. Whittle (D.J.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 914; 170 N.R. 16; 73 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 67].
R. v. Sang, [1980] A.C. 402 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 67].
R. v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272, refd to. [paras. 67, 127].
R. v. Tremblay, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 435; 79 N.R. 153; 25 O.A.C. 93; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 565; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 445; 60 C.R.(3d) 59; 32 C.R.R. 381; 2 M.V.R.(2d) 289, refd to. [para. 69].
R. v. Mohl, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1389; 95 N.R. 381; 77 Sask.R. 35; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 575; [1989] 5 W.W.R. 66, refd to. [para. 69].
R. v. Dersch (W.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 768; 158 N.R. 375; 33 B.C.A.C. 269; 54 W.A.C. 269, refd to. [paras. 70, 111].
R. v. Meddoui (1990), 111 A.R. 295; 2 C.R.(4th) 316; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 345 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 73, 111].
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 105].
R. v. Collins (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 141 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 112].
R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 74 C.R.(3d) 281; 45 C.R.R. 278; 71 O.R.(2d) 575, refd to. [para. 112].
R. v. Duarte – see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.
R. v. Wiggins, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 62; 103 N.R. 118, refd to. [para. 112].
R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117, refd to. [para. 141].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 156]; sect. 10(b), sect. 24(2) [para. 1 et seq.].
Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [para. 92].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 686(1)(a)(iii) [para. 76]; sect. 686(1)(b)(iii) [paras. 52-54, 76, 145].
United States Code (1983) [para. 124].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Bryant, Alan W., Marc Gold, H. Michael Stevenson and David Northrup, Public Attitudes Toward the Exclusion of Evidence: Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1990), 69 Can. Bar Rev. 1, generally [paras. 60, 94].
Bryant, Alan W., Marc Gold, H. Michael Stevenson and David Northrup, Public Support for the Exclusion of Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence (1990), 1 S.C.L.R.(2d) 555, generally [para. 94]; p. 557 [para. 60].
Deslisle, R.J., Collins: An Unjustified Distinction (1987), 56 C.R.(3d) 216, generally [para. 59].
McLellan, A. Anne and Bruce B. Elman, The Enforcement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: An Analysis of Section 24 (1983), 21 Alta. L. Rev. 205, p. 230 [para. 67].
Morissette, Yves-Marie, The Exclusion of Evidence under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: What to Do and What Not to Do (1984), 29 McGill L.J. 521, generally [paras. 59, 91].
Paciocco, David M., The Judicial Repeal of s. 24(2) and the Development of the Canadian Exclusionary Rule (1989-90), 32 Crim. L.Q. 326, pp. 341-343 [para. 93]; 353-354 [para. 110]; 360-361 [para. 112].
Penney, Steven M., Unreal Distinctions: The Exclusion of Unfairly Obtained Evidence Under s. 24(2) of the Charter (1994), 32 Alta. L. Rev. 782, pp. 794 [para. 67]; 800, 810 [para. 59].
Quigley, Tom and Eric Colvin, Developments in Criminal Law and Procedure: The 1988-89 Term (1990), 1 S.C.L.R.(2d) 187, generally [para. 59].
Sopinka, John, Sydney N. Lederman and Alan W. Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), p. 407 [paras. 29, 131].
Tanovich, David M., Can the Improper Admission of Evidence Under the Charter Ever Be Cured? (1994), 32 C.R.(4th) 82, generally, refd to. [para. 53].
Counsel:
Sheldon Goldberg, for the appellant;
Colin M. Sweeney, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Sheldon Goldberg, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;
Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on November 9, 1994, before La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on May 18, 1995, in both official languages, including the following opinions:
Iacobucci, J. (La Forest, Sopinka, Cory and Major, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 57;
Sopinka, J., additional concurring reasons (Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 58 to 74;
Gonthier, J. (partially concurring reasons) – see paragraphs 75 to 77;
L’Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting – see paragraphs 78 to 157.
