R. v. Melvin

R. v. Melvin

The accused was arbitrarily detained when placed in the back of the police vehicle without objectively sufficient grounds (s.9), police failed to inform him of his s.10(b) right to counsel without delay (26 minute delay), the identity statements elicited before the right to counsel were conscriptive and led to discovery of evidence and charges, the Crown did not show the evidence would have been discovered by non-conscriptive means, and admission of those statements would bring the administration of justice into disrepute; therefore the statements are excluded.

Citation
2004 NSPC 48
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Cory Patrick Melvin
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (charter S.24(2) Application)
Outcome
Defence voir dire application granted; statements of the defendant obtained prior to advising s.10(b) and during arbitrary detention excluded from trial evidence.
Legal Topics
Detention and Arrest, Section 10(b) Right to Counsel, Section 9 Arbitrary Detention, Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2), Conscriptive Evidence, Identity/false Name
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Administrative Law Detention and Arrest Section 10(b) Right to Counsel Section 9 Arbitrary Detention Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2) +2 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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Cory Patrick Melvin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (charter S.24(2) Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was arbitrarily detained contrary to s.9 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether police failed to inform the detainee of his s.10(b) right to counsel without delay
  3. 3 Whether statements elicited prior to advising of counsel were conscriptive

Ratio Decidendi

The accused was arbitrarily detained when placed in the back of the police vehicle without objectively sufficient grounds (s.9), police failed to inform him of his s.10(b) right to counsel without delay (26 minute delay), the identity statements elicited before the right to counsel were conscriptive and led to discovery of evidence and charges, the Crown did not show the evidence would have been discovered by non-conscriptive means, and admission of those statements would bring the administration of justice into disrepute; therefore the statements are excluded.

Court Disposition

Defence voir dire application granted; statements of the defendant obtained prior to advising s.10(b) and during arbitrary detention excluded from trial evidence.

Orders

  • Exclude the defendant's statements made before being informed of his s.10(b) rights from the evidence of the trial proper.