R. v. Simard

R. v. Simard

Court found limited s.10(b) informational infringements (short delay before being advised after scene secure and failure to give a Prosper warning when accused declined a non-private consultation) but held that a private consultation was not reasonably feasible until a private room at VGH was available, the non-private part-measure was constitutionally permissible, solicitor-client privilege did not attach to a non-private call, there was no police elicitation or oppression, and the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's statements to persons in authority were voluntary and therefore admissible.

Citation
2018 BCSC 1816
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Michael Philip Simard
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Second Degree Murder / Ruling on Admissibility of Statements (charter Voir Dire)
Outcome
Court found s.10(b) informational infringements (brief delay at scene and failure to give a Prosper warning) but concluded the Crown established that private consultation was not reasonably feasible earlier, that police part-measure of non-private consultation was constitutionally permissible, that no s.7 breach or...
Legal Topics
Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel, Solicitor Client Privilege and S.7, Voluntariness of Statements / Confessions, Prosper Warning / Waiver, Duty to Hold Off / Elicitation, Re Chartering for New Offence, Recording of Non Private Consultations, S.24(2) Exclusion Analysis
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Health Care Law Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel Solicitor Client Privilege and S.7 Voluntariness of Statements / Confessions Prosper Warning / Waiver +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Michael Philip Simard

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Second Degree Murder / Ruling on Admissibility of Statements (charter Voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.10(b) informational obligation was breached by delay in advising detainee of right to counsel after scene was secured
  2. 2 Whether implementational-immediacy of s.10(b) breached by eight+ hour delay before private consultation
  3. 3 Whether police were obliged to give a Prosper warning when accused declined a non-private consultation

Ratio Decidendi

Court found limited s.10(b) informational infringements (short delay before being advised after scene secure and failure to give a Prosper warning when accused declined a non-private consultation) but held that a private consultation was not reasonably feasible until a private room at VGH was available, the non-private part-measure was constitutionally permissible, solicitor-client privilege did not attach to a non-private call, there was no police elicitation or oppression, and the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's statements to persons in authority were voluntary and therefore admissible.

Court Disposition

Court found s.10(b) informational infringements (brief delay at scene and failure to give a Prosper warning) but concluded the Crown established that private consultation was not reasonably feasible earlier, that police part-measure of non-private consultation was constitutionally permissible, that no s.7 breach or...

Orders

  • Findings of s.10(b) infringement for delay in informing accused after scene secured and for failure to give a Prosper warning
  • No exclusion under s.24(2); statements to persons in authority admitted as voluntary and may be led by the Crown (excluding statements the Crown elected not to lead)