R. v. Legebokoff

R. v. Legebokoff

Given the evidence the accused had been repeatedly informed of his Charter and police warnings, had received private access to counsel twice, understood his right to silence and repeatedly exercised it, and no changed circumstances or incriminating answers arose that would render initial legal advice inadequate, there was no breach of s.10(a) or s.10(b) and no obligation to restate rights or provide a further consultation; thus challenged statements are admissible.

Citation
2014 BCSC 368
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Cody Alan Legebokoff
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal (murder); Voir Dire on Admissibility of in Custody Statements / Voir Dire (charter S.10(a) and S.10(b))
Outcome
Application dismissed; no breach of s.10(a) or s.10(b) established; challenged in-custody statements admissible
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, Right to Silence, Admissibility of Statements, Voluntariness, Reconsultation of Counsel, Voir Dire
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Right to Counsel Right to Silence Admissibility of Statements Voluntariness Reconsultation of 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Cody Alan Legebokoff

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (murder); Voir Dire on Admissibility of in Custody Statements / Voir Dire (charter S.10(a) and S.10(b))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's s.10(a) and s.10(b) Charter rights were breached during the second and third in-custody interviews
  2. 2 Whether police were required to restate the right to counsel or provide a further opportunity to consult counsel when questioning shifted to suspected other offences
  3. 3 Whether statements obtained should be excluded or admitted

Ratio Decidendi

Given the evidence the accused had been repeatedly informed of his Charter and police warnings, had received private access to counsel twice, understood his right to silence and repeatedly exercised it, and no changed circumstances or incriminating answers arose that would render initial legal advice inadequate, there was no breach of s.10(a) or s.10(b) and no obligation to restate rights or provide a further consultation; thus challenged statements are admissible.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no breach of s.10(a) or s.10(b) established; challenged in-custody statements admissible

Orders

  • Challenged second and third in-custody statements admitted as evidence
  • Ban on publication pursuant to s.648(1) C.C.C. maintained