Talk:R v Therens

Canada: Law Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This brief is flat out wrong

Check the SCC decision on the website... it did violate his right to retain counsel.

Per Dickson C.J. and McIntyre, Lamer and Le Dain JJ.: Respondent's rights under s. 10(b) of the Charter were violated. A person who complied with a demand, pursuant to s. 235(1) of the Criminal Code, to accompany a police officer to a police station and to submit to a breathalyser test is "detained" within the meaning of s. 10 of the Charter and that person is therefore entitled to be informed of his right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.

This really screwed me up studying for Constitutional Law! I modified the wiki entry.

Yes, it's incorrect. "The Court held that section 235(1) of the Criminal Code, which allowed a police officer to demand a breathalyzer test, violated the accused's right to retain counsel."

s.235(1) did not violate the accused's right to retain cousel. The police officer violated the accused's rights by not telling him of his rights to retain and instruct counsel without delay.

Because of the officers wrongdoing, the evidence obtained has to be disregarded, because allowing it, would bring the administration of justice into disripute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.55.66 (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]