R. v. Mensah

R. v. Mensah

Because the articled clerk acted autonomously without supervision or involvement of his principal and was not a client of the firm, he did not qualify as 'counsel' under s.10(b); police satisfied the right by providing access to duty counsel and the detainee did not act diligently to seek alternate counsel, and in any event the statement was voluntary and would not be excluded under s.24(2).

Citation
2014 NSPC 51
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Tremayne Mensah
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Pre Trial Charter S.10(b) and S.24(2) Application
Outcome
Charter application dismissed; statement admitted into evidence
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel (s.10(b)), Section 24(2) Exclusion, Voluntariness of Statement, Status of Articled Clerks, Police Duties to Facilitate Counsel
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative/professional Regulation Right to Counsel (s.10(b)) Section 24(2) Exclusion Voluntariness of Statement Status of Articled Clerks Police Duties to Facilitate Counsel

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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Tremayne Mensah

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Pre Trial Charter S.10(b) and S.24(2) Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an articled clerk qualifies as "counsel" for s.10(b) purposes
  2. 2 Whether refusal to permit the articled clerk to consult with the detainee breached s.10(b)
  3. 3 Whether police had an obligation to do more to implement the detainee's right to counsel

Ratio Decidendi

Because the articled clerk acted autonomously without supervision or involvement of his principal and was not a client of the firm, he did not qualify as 'counsel' under s.10(b); police satisfied the right by providing access to duty counsel and the detainee did not act diligently to seek alternate counsel, and in any event the statement was voluntary and would not be excluded under s.24(2).

Court Disposition

Charter application dismissed; statement admitted into evidence

Orders

  • Charter s.10(b) breach not made out on these facts
  • Statement to Sgt. Astephen admitted as evidence at trial