R. v. Mirhadi

R. v. Mirhadi

The court held there was no Charter s.10(b) breach because the police reasonably facilitated access to counsel by transporting the accused to the detachment to use the Brydges line, the delay in obtaining a callback was attributable to counsel availability and beyond police control, no questioning occurred during the delay, and voluntariness was established, therefore the statements are admissible.

Citation
2014 BCSC 1877
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Babak Mirhadi
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Uttering Threats and Weapons Offences / Voir Dire on Voluntariness and Charter S.10(b) Motion (oral Ruling)
Outcome
Defence Charter s.10(b) challenges dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, Charter S.10(b), Admissibility of Statements, Voluntariness, Voir Dire, Arrest and Detention
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Right to Counsel Charter S.10(b) Admissibility of Statements Voluntariness Voir Dire +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Babak Mirhadi

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Uttering Threats and Weapons Offences / Voir Dire on Voluntariness and Charter S.10(b) Motion (oral Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Charter s.10(b) was breached by failing to facilitate access to counsel at the scene of detention
  2. 2 Whether the police took reasonable implementational steps at the detachment to provide access to counsel
  3. 3 Whether any delay in facilitating counsel rendered subsequent statements inadmissible

Ratio Decidendi

The court held there was no Charter s.10(b) breach because the police reasonably facilitated access to counsel by transporting the accused to the detachment to use the Brydges line, the delay in obtaining a callback was attributable to counsel availability and beyond police control, no questioning occurred during the delay, and voluntariness was established, therefore the statements are admissible.

Court Disposition

Defence Charter s.10(b) challenges dismissed

Orders

  • Defence challenges alleging a Charter s.10(b) breach are dismissed
  • Statements made by the accused are admissible and will be available to the Crown at trial