R. v. Bartle
Encyclopedia
R. v. Bartle, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada
decision on the right to retain and instruct counsel under section 10(b)
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
. The Court held that a police officer is required to hold off on their investigation upon arresting an individual until they have been informed of their rights and given sufficient information and access to contact a private lawyer or duty counsel
. On its face, this is very similar to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona
.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
decision on the right to retain and instruct counsel under section 10(b)
Section Ten of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Ten of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifies rights upon arrest or detention, including the rights to consult a lawyer and the right to habeas corpus. As a part of a broader range of legal rights guaranteed by the Charter, section 10 rights may be limited by the Oakes test...
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
. The Court held that a police officer is required to hold off on their investigation upon arresting an individual until they have been informed of their rights and given sufficient information and access to contact a private lawyer or duty counsel
Duty counsel
In Ontario, Canada a duty counsel is a lawyer paid by Legal Aid Ontario who provides limited legal services in criminal, family law and child protection matters to people who arrive at court without representation, mainly in the Ontario Court of Justice....
. On its face, this is very similar to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona, , was a landmark 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant...
.