Case Briefs
Database For Canadian Criminal Law

 R. v. Egeli

List of Similar Cases | Add Data to This Case | Edit

  Home |Add a new case | List of Issues 
Search for a Case by Name, Cite, Issue, Facts and Reasons

Find A Case That Starts With

Canadian lawyers and Judges are invited to add Additional Issues, Facts, Reasons, Anecdotes, History, Comments, Distinguished, Overruled, Approved, Considered, Corrections, or anything else helpful to readers by clicking the Add Data to This Case hyperlink above. 

ID: 846

Title: R. v. Egeli

Cite: 2015 ONCJ 271

Court: ON CJ

Date: 19/05/2015

Justices: Cleghorn, J.

Result: Convicted

WhoWon: P

Issue: Privacy During RTC


Charges: Impaired, Over 80


 

Reasons

[67] Mr. Egeli was at the scene for 45 minutes after he was arrested. The delay at the scene provided more than ample time to allow Mr. Egeli a real opportunity to consult with counsel. He had a cell phone on him at the time of the arrest. He was placed in the back of the police cruiser while the officers secured the scene. Con- stable Mauceri acknowledged that the audio and video equipment in his police cruiser could have been turned off. This would have afforded Mr. Egeli the privacy needed for him to consult counsel. Neither Constable Mauceri nor Sergeant Strang- ways gave any evidence that there were specific concerns regarding their safety re- lated to Mr. Egeli. There was no suggestion that he was behaving in an erratic or aggressive manner. Although objectively grounded concerns about officer safety can justify a delay in either administering or implementing the right to counsel, such delays must be objectively justified in the circumstances. Unsubstantiated concerns about officer safety will simply not suffice.<P> Note: 10b serious breach [71] to [74] found but evidence not excluded under 24(2) Edit


 
Click this link to Add Your Comments about: R. v. Egeli
Click here to Add a Hyperlink re  R. v. Egeli

Biss Private Use Only