R. v. Hugh

R. v. Hugh

The statement is excluded because police provided materially incorrect information about the accused's likely release which dissuaded him from exercising his s.10(b) right; officers further failed to fulfill their implementational duties by not facilitating timely access to counsel after learning the regular lawyer...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 BCSC 1342
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Kevin Anthony Hugh
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Statement (s.10(b) Charter Issue)
Outcome
Accused's statement excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel S.10(b), Implementational and Informational Duties of Police, Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2), Voluntariness of Statements, Search and Arrest Procedures
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Charter Rights Evidence Law Right to Counsel S.10(b) Implementational and Informational Duties of Police Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2) Voluntariness of Statements Search and Arrest Procedures

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Kevin Anthony Hugh

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Statement (s.10(b) Charter Issue)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police breached s.10(b) by providing misleading information and failing to facilitate access to counsel
  2. 2 Whether the accused validly waived right to counsel
  3. 3 Whether the statement should be excluded under s.24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The statement is excluded because police provided materially incorrect information about the accused's likely release which dissuaded him from exercising his s.10(b) right; officers further failed to fulfill their implementational duties by not facilitating timely access to counsel after learning the regular lawyer was unavailable and by continuing to question after a clear request, and on balance under the Grant factors admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Court Disposition

Accused's statement excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Orders

  • The statement obtained from Kevin Anthony Hugh on August 31, 2011 is excluded from the Crown's evidence