R. v. Evans (1991), 124 N.R. 278 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Wesley Gareth Evans (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(No. 21375)
Indexed As: R. v. Evans
Supreme Court of Canada
Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin
and Stevenson, JJ.
April 18, 1991.
Summary:
The accused was convicted by a jury of first degree murder almost wholly on the basis of incriminating statements made to police. The accused appealed, claiming a violation of his rights under ss. 7, 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter and that the statements should have been excluded under s. 24(2).
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Hutcheon, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The majority held that the accused’s s. 10(a) rights were violated, but not his s. 10(b) rights. The court refused to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2). The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and substituted an acquittal.
Civil Rights – Topic 3608
Detention and imprisonment – Detention – Right to be informed of reasons for – A borderline mentally retarded accused was arrested for trafficking for the collateral purpose of providing evidence against his brother, a suspected murderer – Information led police to suspect the accused of the murders, so the nature of the interrogation and detention changed – The accused was not formally advised that he was now being detained for murder, but he was aware that he was suspected – The Supreme Court of Canada suggested that the requirements of s. 10(a) of the Charter were met – See paragraphs 24 to 30.
Civil Rights – Topic 4602
Right to counsel – Denial of – Evidence taken inadmissible – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 8368
].
Civil Rights – Topic 4605
Right to counsel – Denial of – Due to lack of time or opportunity – A borderline mentally retarded accused confessed to two murders after extensive police interrogation – The accused was asked if he wished to talk to a lawyer before providing a written statement – The accused called his lawyer, who was away on vacation – The accused was not asked if he wished to call another lawyer – Police advised the accused that he could talk to his lawyer later or give a written statement – The accused gave the statement – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused’s s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was denied – The court stated that the accused did not waive his right to counsel, because his “waiver” was not done with full knowledge of the rights s. 10(b) was enacted to protect – See paragraphs 31 to 43.
Civil Rights – Topic 4608
Right to counsel – Right to be advised of – An accused was arrested on a trafficking charge for the collateral purpose of providing evidence against his brother, a suspected murderer – Information led police to suspect the accused – The police, without formally advising the accused of the change in the nature of his detention, interrogated him with respect to the murder – The accused was not readvised of his right to counsel – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the accused’s s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was denied by the failure to reiterate the accused’s right to counsel where there was a fundamental change in the nature of the investigation (i.e., from trafficking to murder) – See paragraphs 41 to 43.
Civil Rights – Topic 4609
Right to counsel – Duty of authority to notify accused and explain right to counsel – A borderline mentally retarded accused arrested on a trafficking charge for the collateral purpose of providing evidence against his brother, a suspected murderer, was advised of his right to counsel – The accused stated that he did not understand – Police had knowledge of his limited intelligence, but proceeded to extensively interrogate him without explaining what his right to counsel meant – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the accused’s s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was denied by the failure to adequately explain to the accused his right to counsel – See paragraphs 31 to 43.
Civil Rights – Topic 4609
Right to counsel – Duty of authority to notify accused and explain right to counsel – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter imposed three subsidiary duties on police: (1) the duty to inform the accused of his right to counsel; (2) the duty to give the accused an opportunity to exercise that right without delay; and (3) the duty to refrain from eliciting evidence from the accused until the accused had a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel – See paragraph 35.
Civil Rights – Topic 4612
Right to counsel – Waiver of – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 4605
].
Civil Rights – Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of rights – Remedies – Exclusion of evidence – A borderline mentally retarded accused confessed to murder after repeated violations of his right to counsel, extensive police interrogation during which the police lied and evidence that the accused felt that confessing was the only way to end the interrogation – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the confession should be excluded from evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrepute – The accused’s mental state, his susceptibility to suggestion and the police pressure exerted made the confession highly unreliable – See paragraphs 45 to 58.
Civil Rights – Topic 8550
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Interpretation – Bring the administration of justice into disrepute – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 8368
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Kelly (1985), 7 O.A.C. 46; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 419 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281; 93 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 242 A.P.R. 35, refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192, refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Anderson (1984), 2 O.A.C. 258; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].
R. v. Nelson (1982), 32 C.R.(3d) 256 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 40].
R. v. Broyles (1987), 82 A.R. 238 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].
R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40, refd to. [para. 43].
R. v. Korponay, [1982] S.C.R. 41; 44 N.R. 103, refd to. [para. 43].
R. v. Collins, [1987] S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699, refd to. [para. 49].
Christie v. Leachinsky, [1947] A.C. 573, refd to. [para. 69].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 10, sect. 24(2) [para. 23].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 218 [para. 4].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 235 [para. 4].
Counsel:
Glen Orris, Q.C., for the appellant;
John E. Hall, Q.C., for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Orris Burns, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;
DuMoulin, Black, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on January 21, 1991, before Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On April 18, 1991, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:
McLachlin, J. (Gonthier and Cory, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 60;
Stevenson, J. – see paragraphs 61 to 67;
Sopinka, J. – see paragraphs 68 to 72.
