Introduction Within the Canadian criminal justice system, the concept of due process maintains fairness and equality for everyone involved. All accused parties are given the ability to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, therefore, the onus is placed upon the prosecution to prove that the defendant is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Since the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part of the Constitution Act, 1982, the rights for the accused have increased dramatically as there are protections put in place to ensure they are treated in a proper way that allows for all rights to be respected. According to Goff, (2014) limiting the powers of justice officials protects the rights of the accused. The due process model
…show more content…
v. McLean [2014] A.J. No. 1137, the arresting officer, Constable Simon Bouthillier from the RCMP Cold Lake detachment did not follow the correct procedures while conducting an impaired driving investigation. The appropriate Charter caution was given upon arrest and the Accused was placed in the telephone room to contact legal counsel (LexisNexis, 2015). The use of due process comes into this case when Constable Bouthillier was outside the door and overheard the Accused speaking to counsel. (LexisNexis, 2015) Upon appearance in court, the actions of Constable Bouthillier were brought into question with regards to privacy when communicating with counsel. The Charter allows for free and private communication between counsel and those held in police custody, therefore, a breach of the privacy would go against one of the fundamental principles that one has when arrested. The accused must be provided the opportunity to speak freely with counsel of their choice and have an honest, frank discussion with them without fear of being overheard by the investigating officer. In this case, the judge had to determine if the matter of impaired driving was important enough to allow for the breach of the Accused rights as guaranteed by the Charter. Provincial Court Judge R.M. Saccomani ruled that admitting the Certificate of Analyses would bring justice into disrepute, therefore, this matter was dismissed. (LexisNexis, 2015) By dismissing the charges, due process was …show more content…
v. Fedoruk [2015] A.J. No. 680, the Accused person was denied their right to counsel when arrested after a traffic stop was initiated by the investigating officer and sole witness of the Crown, Constable Simon Bouthillier (Lexis Nexis, 2015). The right to retain and instruct counsel without delay (Section 10(b), Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was infringed by the arresting officer failing to allow the Accused to contact counsel at the detachment when
v. McLean [2014] A.J. No. 1137, the arresting officer, Constable Simon Bouthillier from the RCMP Cold Lake detachment did not follow the correct procedures while conducting an impaired driving investigation. The appropriate Charter caution was given upon arrest and the Accused was placed in the telephone room to contact legal counsel (LexisNexis, 2015). The use of due process comes into this case when Constable Bouthillier was outside the door and overheard the Accused speaking to counsel. (LexisNexis, 2015) Upon appearance in court, the actions of Constable Bouthillier were brought into question with regards to privacy when communicating with counsel. The Charter allows for free and private communication between counsel and those held in police custody, therefore, a breach of the privacy would go against one of the fundamental principles that one has when arrested. The accused must be provided the opportunity to speak freely with counsel of their choice and have an honest, frank discussion with them without fear of being overheard by the investigating officer. In this case, the judge had to determine if the matter of impaired driving was important enough to allow for the breach of the Accused rights as guaranteed by the Charter. Provincial Court Judge R.M. Saccomani ruled that admitting the Certificate of Analyses would bring justice into disrepute, therefore, this matter was dismissed. (LexisNexis, 2015) By dismissing the charges, due process was …show more content…
v. Fedoruk [2015] A.J. No. 680, the Accused person was denied their right to counsel when arrested after a traffic stop was initiated by the investigating officer and sole witness of the Crown, Constable Simon Bouthillier (Lexis Nexis, 2015). The right to retain and instruct counsel without delay (Section 10(b), Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was infringed by the arresting officer failing to allow the Accused to contact counsel at the detachment when