R. v. Little

R. v. Little

The trial judge erred: there was evidence the accused had access to a telephone and the delay in reaching counsel was not attributable to police; no breach of s.10(b) or s.7 was established and the statement was voluntary under common law criteria; therefore exclusion under s.24(2) was not warranted and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 BCSC 1569
Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Patrick Little
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Summary Conviction Appeal / Appellate Decision by Supreme Court of British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel, Charter S.7 Right to Life Liberty and Security/right to Silence, Charter S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Admissibility of Statements and Voluntariness, Access to Duty Counsel and Delay
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel Charter S.7 Right to Life Liberty and Security/right to Silence Charter S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Admissibility of Statements and Voluntariness Access to Duty Counsel and Delay

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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Patrick Little

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Conviction Appeal / Appellate Decision by Supreme Court of British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in excluding an inculpatory statement
  2. 2 Whether the police breached s.10(b) by denying immediate access to counsel
  3. 3 Whether the accused's s.7 rights were violated by police conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred: there was evidence the accused had access to a telephone and the delay in reaching counsel was not attributable to police; no breach of s.10(b) or s.7 was established and the statement was voluntary under common law criteria; therefore exclusion under s.24(2) was not warranted and the statement should have been admitted, warranting allowing the Crown appeal and ordering a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • New trial ordered in the Provincial Court of British Columbia pursuant to s.822(2) of the Criminal Code