R. v. Boudreau

R. v. Boudreau

The court found the accused was detained and adequately informed of the jeopardy, he understood and expressly declined counsel by saying 'No, not at this time', that decline constituted an unequivocal waiver, duty counsel would have been effective to advise on the right against self-incrimination, and therefore there was no breach of s.10(b); the statement was admissible.

Citation
2009 NSPC 26
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Gordon Andrew Boudreau
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Fisheries Act Offences / Trial — Decision on S.10(b) Charter Application (preliminary Motion)
Outcome
Charter s.10(b) application dismissed; statement ruled admissible
Legal Topics
Section 10(b) Right to Counsel, Waiver of Rights, Detention, Duty Counsel Availability, Voluntariness of Statement
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Fisheries Law Section 10(b) Right to Counsel Waiver of Rights Detention Duty Counsel Availability Voluntariness of Statement

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Gordon Andrew Boudreau

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Fisheries Act Offences / Trial — Decision on S.10(b) Charter Application (preliminary Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.10(b) Charter right to counsel was engaged and breached
  2. 2 Whether the accused validly and unequivocally waived the right to counsel
  3. 3 Whether duty counsel would have provided effective assistance (expertise)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the accused was detained and adequately informed of the jeopardy, he understood and expressly declined counsel by saying 'No, not at this time', that decline constituted an unequivocal waiver, duty counsel would have been effective to advise on the right against self-incrimination, and therefore there was no breach of s.10(b); the statement was admissible.

Court Disposition

Charter s.10(b) application dismissed; statement ruled admissible

Orders

  • Application to exclude statement under s.10(b) dismissed
  • Statement given July 1, 2007 admitted into evidence