R. v. Rhyno

R. v. Rhyno

D/Cst. Fairbairn satisfied the informational duty and, on the facts, provided a reasonable opportunity; the accused was not reasonably diligent and quickly decided to speak, such that police were not required to cease questioning and her subsequent words constituted an implicit, voluntary waiver; furthermore, even if a Charter breach had occurred it was minor and the statement would be admitted under s.24(2) because police conduct was not willful or reckless, the impact on state interests was outweighed by society's interest in truth‑seeking and available corroborating evidence.

Citation
2012 NSSC 357
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Michelle Florence Rhyno; Accused: Michael Raymond Rhyno
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal (robbery) / Voir Dire S.10(b) Charter Admissibility Hearing
Outcome
Video-recorded statement of Michelle Florence Rhyno (June 5, 2011) admitted; court found no breach of s.10(b) or, alternatively, would admit the statement under s.24(2).
Legal Topics
Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel, S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Waiver of Rights, Reasonable Diligence, Elicitation of Statements
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Waiver of Rights Reasonable Diligence Elicitation of Statements

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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Michelle Florence Rhyno

Accused

Michael Raymond Rhyno

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (robbery) / Voir Dire S.10(b) Charter Admissibility Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did police satisfy the implementational duties under s.10(b)?
  2. 2 Did police provide a reasonable opportunity and assistance to contact counsel?
  3. 3 Was the accused reasonably diligent in attempting to contact counsel?

Ratio Decidendi

D/Cst. Fairbairn satisfied the informational duty and, on the facts, provided a reasonable opportunity; the accused was not reasonably diligent and quickly decided to speak, such that police were not required to cease questioning and her subsequent words constituted an implicit, voluntary waiver; furthermore, even if a Charter breach had occurred it was minor and the statement would be admitted under s.24(2) because police conduct was not willful or reckless, the impact on state interests was outweighed by society's interest in truth‑seeking and available corroborating evidence.

Court Disposition

Video-recorded statement of Michelle Florence Rhyno (June 5, 2011) admitted; court found no breach of s.10(b) or, alternatively, would admit the statement under s.24(2).

Orders

  • Admit the accused's June 5, 2011 video statement as evidence