R. v. Burlingham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| R. v. Burlingham | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||||
| Hearing: November 9, 1994 Judgment: May 18, 1995 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||||
|
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer |
|||||||||||
| Reasons given | |||||||||||
|
Majority by: Iacobucci J. |
|||||||||||
R. v. Burlingham, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206 is a leading decision on the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).
Contents |
[edit] Background
Terrence Burlingham was arrested for the October 1984 murders of Denean Worms and Brenda Hughes in Cranbrook, British Columbia. Over a period of four days he was interrogated by police despite his continued request to see a lawyer. During the interrogation the police suggested that his parents would be hurt by delaying things and made may disparaging remarks about the accused's lawyer. The police later offered him a deal to reduce the charge to second degree murder in exchange to show where the murder weapon was. Eventually he agreed and took them to where he hid the gun used to kill Hughes, however, the crown had not consented to the deal and so they did not follow through with their end. The trial judges found that the deal was an honest mistake. However, since Burlingham did not have access to a lawyer his section 10(b) rights were violated, but the murder weapon and several incriminating statements were still admitted. Burlingham was convicted of first degree murder.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the decision with McEachern C.J. in dissent.
[edit] Opinion of the Court
In a six to one decision, the Court found that the evidence should excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter and overturned the conviction.
On the matter of the use of section 24(2) Iacobucci emphasized:
| “ | we should never lose sight of the fact that even a person accused of the most heinous crimes, and no matter the likelihood that he or she actually committed those crimes, is entitled to the full protection of the Charter. Short-cutting or short-circuiting those rights affects not only the accused, but also the entire reputation of the criminal justice system. It must be emphasized that the goals of preserving the integrity of the criminal justice system as well as promoting the decency of investigatory techniques are of fundamental importance in applying s. 24(2)... These goals operate independently of the type of crime for which the individual stands accused. | ” |
