R. v. Collicutt

R. v. Collicutt

On these facts the police made a genuine effort to contact the accused's counsel by calling the office and offering duty counsel; the accused did not prove on a balance of probabilities that he asked the officer to take further steps or otherwise acted diligently to secure his counsel of choice, therefore no breach of s.10(b) occurred and the s.24(2) exclusion analysis was unnecessary.

Citation
2008 NSPC 45
Parties
Crown: R.; Defendant: Sterling Collicutt
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Voir Dire (charter S.10(b) Application)
Outcome
Charter application denied; no breach of s.10(b) found
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, Section 10(b) of the Charter, Breach of Charter, Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2), Impaired Driving
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Right to Counsel Section 10(b) of the Charter Breach of Charter Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2) Impaired Driving

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

Parties

R.

Crown

Sterling Collicutt

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Voir Dire (charter S.10(b) Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's s.10(b) right to counsel of choice was breached
  2. 2 Whether the police acted with reasonable diligence to facilitate counsel of choice
  3. 3 Whether the accused acted with reasonable diligence to contact counsel of choice

Ratio Decidendi

On these facts the police made a genuine effort to contact the accused's counsel by calling the office and offering duty counsel; the accused did not prove on a balance of probabilities that he asked the officer to take further steps or otherwise acted diligently to secure his counsel of choice, therefore no breach of s.10(b) occurred and the s.24(2) exclusion analysis was unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Charter application denied; no breach of s.10(b) found

Orders

  • Motion under s.24(2) of the Charter denied
  • Trial to continue as scheduled on July 24, 2008