R. v. Manninen (1987), 76 N.R. 198 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
R. v. Manninen
(No. 18505)
Indexed As: R. v. Manninen
Supreme Court of Canada
Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
June 25, 1987.
Summary:
The accused was convicted of, inter alia, armed robbery and use of a firearm while committing an indictable offence. The trial judge held that statements by the accused were admissible, even if the accused’s right to counsel had been infringed, because admission of the statements would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The accused appealed his conviction for these offences.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in 1 O.A.C. 199; 43 O.R.(2d) 731; 3 D.L.R.(4th) 541; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 37 C.R.(3d) 162, allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial, on the ground that the trial judge erred in admitting the accused’s statements into evidence. The court held that the police clearly infringed the accused’s right to counsel, a breach which was wilful and deliberate, and that the accused’s statements should be excluded from evidence as their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Crown appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court agreed that the accused’s statements should have been excluded and that a new trial was warranted on the charges.
Civil Rights – Topic 4602
Right to counsel – Denial of – Evidence taken inadmissible – The accused gave statements to police (one incriminating) – The evidence was obtained in a manner which wilfully and deliberately violated the right to counsel in s. 10(b) of the Charter of Rights – Police continued to question the accused, although he clearly asserted his right to remain silent and consult counsel, regardless that there was a telephone available and no urgency that would justify the denial of rights – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the accused’s statements should be excluded pursuant to s. 24 (2) of the Charter, because to use them went to the very fairness of the trial, thus bringing the administration of justice into disrepute – See paragraphs 27 to 31.
Civil Rights – Topic 4604
Right to counsel – Denial of – What constitutes – Upon being arrested and cautioned, the accused told police that he would say nothing until he saw his lawyer and requested to see his lawyer – The police and the accused remained on the premises for two hours before leaving for the police station, yet they denied him the use of an available telephone and continued to question him (particularly a question presuming guilt) – There was no urgency justifying such conduct – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the police wilfully and deliberately violated the accused’s right to retain and instruct counsel without delay in s. 10(b) of the Charter of Rights – See paragraphs 18 to 26.
Civil Rights – Topic 4609
Right to counsel – Duty of police to explain right to counsel – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the right to counsel in s. 10(b) of the Charter imposes at least two duties on the police in addition to the duty to inform the detainee of his rights: (1) the police must provide the detainee with a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay and (2) the police must cease questioning or otherwise attempting to elicit evidence from the detainee until he has had a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel – See paragraphs 21, 23.
Civil Rights – Topic 4612
Right to counsel – Waiver or abandonment of – The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no implied waiver of the right to counsel simply because the accused answered police questions – The court held that this is so particularly where the accused clearly asserted his right at the beginning and the end of questioning and the police had blatantly ignored his request and proceeded to question him, for in such case the accused may feel compelled to answer – See paragraph 25.
Civil Rights – Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of rights – Remedies – Exclusion of evidence – [see Civil Rights – Topic 4602 above].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, appld. [para. 17].
Brownridge v. The Queen, [1972] S.C.R. 926, refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Nelson (1982), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 147 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Anderson (1984), 2 O.A.C. 258; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Dombrowski (1985), 37 Sask.R. 259; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(2d) 481; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 D.L.R. (4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153, appld. [para. 23].
R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 50 C.R.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. Esposito (1985), 12 O.A.C. 350; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 88, refd to. [para. 23].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 10(b) [paras. 13, 18, 21, 23, 25-26]; sect. 24(2) [paras. 11, 16, 27].
Counsel:
Casey Hill, for the appellant;
Irwin Koziebrocki, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, for the appellant;
William S. Hechter, Toronto, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada, on April 3, 1987. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered by Lamer, J., on June 25, 1987.
