R. v. Atwell

R. v. Atwell

The application was dismissed because the court found the initial legal advice was adequate, objectively the accused understood his rights and repeatedly exercised the right to silence, there were no objectively observable changed circumstances or undermining police conduct that would have required a further...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2023 NSSC 347
Parties
Crown/respondent: His Majesty the King; Accused/applicant: Darroll Murray Atwell
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial S.10(b) Charter Application to Exclude Statements
Outcome
Charter application dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, Section 10(b), Exclusion of Evidence, Custodial Interrogation, Duty to Provide Further Legal Advice, Legal Aid Duty Counsel
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Right to Counsel Section 10(b) Exclusion of Evidence Custodial Interrogation Duty to Provide Further Legal Advice +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown/respondent

Darroll Murray Atwell

Accused/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial S.10(b) Charter Application to Exclude Statements

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police breached s.10(b) by failing to provide a further opportunity to consult counsel
  2. 2 Whether police were required to inform the detainee that another duty counsel had called and was available in person
  3. 3 Whether police conduct undermined initial legal advice such that further consultation was triggered

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the court found the initial legal advice was adequate, objectively the accused understood his rights and repeatedly exercised the right to silence, there were no objectively observable changed circumstances or undermining police conduct that would have required a further consultation or disclosure of the other duty counsel call, and the statements were therefore admissible.

Court Disposition

Charter application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to exclude statements under s.10(b) dismissed; no exclusion ordered