Case Briefs
Database For Canadian Criminal Law

 R. v. Manninen

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

Please add a hyperlink to an online copy of this decision.

 

 

  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: 501

Title: R. v. Manninen

Cite: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233 , [1987] S.C.J. No. 41

Court: SCC

Date: 25/06/1987

Justices: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson,

Result: Crown appeal dismissed

WhoWon: D

Issue: Right to Counsel


Charges: Armed robbery, use firearm during indictable offence


 

Facts

on arrest accused advised of RTC and standard caution, Responded: Prove it. I ain't saying anything until I see my lawyer". Police continued to question. incriminating answer Edit


Reasons

At p. 5 QL " 9 There was an operating telephone in the small office where the respondent was arrested and the police officers used it in the course of the afternoon. The respondent did not make a direct request to use the telephone and the police officers did not volunteer the use of the telephone to the respondent. The trial judge made the following finding: I find the police had no desire to have him call a lawyer, and intended to call a lawyer back at the station when the arrest was completed. The respondent did not speak to his lawyer until the lawyer called him at the police station at 8:35 p.m. " ... at QL p. 7 of 9 "The duty to facilitate contact with counsel has been consistently acknowledged under s. 10(b) of the Charter by the lower courts: R. v. Nelson (1982), 3 C.C.C. (3d) 147 (Man. Q.B.); R. v. Anderson (1984), 10 C.C.C. (3d) 417 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Dombrowski (1985), 18 C.C.C. (3d) 164 (Sask. C.A.), and the Ontario Court of Appeal in this case. In Dombrowski, the Court held that, where a telephone is available at an earlier occasion, there is no justification for delaying the opportunity to contact counsel until arrival at the police station. 21 In my view, this aspect of the right to counsel was clearly infringed in this case. The respondent clearly asserted his right to remain silent and his desire to consult his lawyer. There was a telephone immediately at hand in the office, which the officers used for their own purposes. It was not necessary for the respondent to make an express request to use the telephone. The duty to facilitate contact with counsel included the duty to offer the respondent the use of the telephone. Of course, there may be circumstances in which it is particularly urgent that the police continue with an investigation before it is possible to facilitate a detainee's communication with counsel. There was no urgency in the circumstances surrounding the offences in this case." Edit


 

Click this link to Add Your Comments about: R. v. Manninen

Click here to Add a Hyperlink re  R. v. Manninen

Biss Private Use Only