R. v. B.R.J.

R. v. B.R.J.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that s.146 YCJA was complied with because duty counsel had a conflict, police failed to secure a conflict-free lawyer or adequately implement the youth's right to a second, independent consultation, and the police explanation and conduct left the youth with a compromised and confused understanding of his counsel options; consequently the statement was inadmissible.

Citation
2012 NSPC 25
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused: B.R.J.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Youth / Voir Dire at Trial (admissibility of Statement)
Outcome
The youth's statement to Cst. Burns is inadmissible for failure to comply with s.146 YCJA; charges otherwise remain.
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, Youth Criminal Justice Act S.146 Compliance, Admissibility of Statements, Waiver, Conflict of Interest for Duty Counsel, Voluntariness
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Youth Justice Charter Rights Right to Counsel Youth Criminal Justice Act S.146 Compliance Admissibility of Statements Waiver Conflict of Interest for Duty Counsel +1 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown

B.R.J.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Youth / Voir Dire at Trial (admissibility of Statement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement complied with s.146 YCJA
  2. 2 Whether right to counsel was clearly explained in language appropriate to the youth's age and understanding
  3. 3 Whether duty counsel's conflict negated effective implementation of right to counsel

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that s.146 YCJA was complied with because duty counsel had a conflict, police failed to secure a conflict-free lawyer or adequately implement the youth's right to a second, independent consultation, and the police explanation and conduct left the youth with a compromised and confused understanding of his counsel options; consequently the statement was inadmissible.

Court Disposition

The youth's statement to Cst. Burns is inadmissible for failure to comply with s.146 YCJA; charges otherwise remain.

Orders

  • Exclude B.R.J.'s statement to Cst. Burns from evidence