R. v. Shannon

R. v. Shannon

No s.10(b) breach found: accused received initial and subsequent consultations (including Legal Aid), there was no material change in jeopardy or confusion requiring renewed counsel, interviewer offered further consultation and did not so denigrate counsel as to nullify advice; statements given by accused are admissible and may be used for cross-examination.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1519
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Trevor Jeremiah Shannon
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Homicide (second Degree Murder Charge) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Statement Under S.10(b) Charter
Outcome
Statement admissible; no Charter s.10(b) breach found.
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, Admissibility of Statements, Section 10(b) Charter, Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Right to Counsel Admissibility of Statements Section 10(b) Charter Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2)

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Trevor Jeremiah Shannon

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Homicide (second Degree Murder Charge) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Statement Under S.10(b) Charter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did police fail to ensure detainee understood right not to cooperate?
  2. 2 Did interviewer deny access to counsel at a crucial point when detainee implied he wished to consult counsel?
  3. 3 Did police intimate charges would be affected by timing of statement?

Ratio Decidendi

No s.10(b) breach found: accused received initial and subsequent consultations (including Legal Aid), there was no material change in jeopardy or confusion requiring renewed counsel, interviewer offered further consultation and did not so denigrate counsel as to nullify advice; statements given by accused are admissible and may be used for cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Statement admissible; no Charter s.10(b) breach found.

Orders

  • Statement may be used in cross-examination if the accused testifies.