8 ball award for supreme court

[old medic]

http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2008/09/12/6741961-sun.html

Supremes baffling
Eight-Ball for Canada's highest court

By TOM BRODBECK

Canada's highest court is the recipient of this column's Eight-Ball Award for the first time since the inaugural prize was handed out five years ago next week.

The award is handed out to highlight some of the worst perversions of justice in our court system.

The Supreme Court of Canada gets the honour after a baffling ruling yesterday in a case where the court says police failed to ensure a young offender properly understood his Charter rights.

This case involved a Nova Scotia chronic car thief -- who we can't name -- charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

He was charged after the car he was driving was involved in a 2004 crash that nearly killed a 24-year-old man who was walking home, court heard.

When the 15-year-old was arrested by police, cops read him his rights, including his right to obtain counsel.

The kid said he understood his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and waved those rights -- in writing -- to have a lawyer.

Police got a videotaped confession from him and the case went to court.

However, the trial judge ruled the police videotape was inadmissible because she wasn't convinced the accused gave the confession voluntarily. So the kid walked.

The Crown appealed, the Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

But the kid's lawyer took the case to the Supreme Court where he found a very sympathetic audience and the top court upheld the original acquittal.

So the kid walks because a bunch of judges said even though cops read the accused his rights and got him to sign a waiver, they still didn't do enough to ensure poor little Johnny didn't have his rights violated?

Good grief. At some point you've got to give your head a shake. How far is our judiciary going to go on these Charter issues?

The top court ruled police had an obligation to go the extra mile to ensure the accused clearly understood his rights because he had a learning disability.

So what are the police supposed to do, bring in a child psychologist and do finger puppet explanations to the kid?

UNFAIR AND WRONG

Give me a break. The accused is charged with a serious crime, his rights were read by police upon detention, he signed a waiver and the courts still say the police screwed up?

Pretty soon if a cop looks at you the wrong way, it's going to be grounds for a Charter violation.

Look, the Charter is there for a very important reason. We need a Charter to protect people's basic rights and liberties. And when those rights are truly breached, cases should be thrown out of court.

We all get that.

If someone is detained, for example, and doesn't know they have the right to remain silent, get a lawyer and make a phone call, that's grossly unfair and wrong.

Everybody deserves to be treated equally and fairly before the law and that includes being informed of your rights.

And while police have an obligation to ensure you understand your rights, there has to be some reasonable limit. How are police to know in every case whether the person truly understands what they are being told, even when they appear to understand?

The top court conveniently sidestepped that very important reality.

At some point, reasonableness and common sense have to factor into the equation.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court appeared blind to that in this case.

Enjoy the award. It will look good on the mantle at 301 Wellington St. in Ottawa.

 

[Ecco]

I am not a lawyer, but the kid is 15.  There is therefore no expectations that he understands his rights, that he can take legal decisions for himself, etc...  In that particular case, it seems the police should have contacted a legal guardian before taking a confession.

 

[aesop081]

I am not a lawyer, but the kid is 15. 

It appears that his age was not what the court took issue with

The top court ruled police had an obligation to go the extra mile to ensure the accused clearly understood his rights because he had a learning disability.

 

[Staff Weenie]

Both of my children have mild learning disabilities - but I'd never, everlet them use it as a means to get out of a crime, ever....

So what are Police to do now??? Ensure that they use finger puppets and interpretive dance routines so that everybody understands?

Perhaps every peson taken into custody now needs a full battery of psych tests to ensure they have the cognitive ability to understand their rights?

We need a radical rethink of our justice system....

 

[Blackadder1916]

For those interested, here is a link to the S.C.C. decision in R. v.  L.T.H.  Based on a quick read, it does not appear to be the earth shattering perversion of justice as suggested in the quoted article.

Perhaps every peson taken into custody now needs a full battery of psych tests to ensure they have the cognitive ability to understand their rights?

From the decision in R. v. L.T.H. where a previous decision is cited.  This is nothing new.

23                              The kind of reasonable efforts that must be made by police officers were ably summarized in R. v. C.G., 1986 CarswellOnt 1556 (Prov. Ct. (Fam. Div.)):

. . . persons in authority taking statements must learn something about the educational level of the child, the language and vocabulary skills of the child, his faculties of understanding, his emotional state at the time. These inquiries do not call for the intervention of a psychologist, or a telephone call to the school teacher, or even to a parent. But they do require enough conversation with the young person, to permit the officer to determine how many phrases must be explained and to what extent he must use ordinary or street language or even slang to be sure the child understands what is being said.

Section 56 [of the Young Offenders Act, the predecessor to s. 146 of the YCJA] will require evidence on a voir dire from the persons in authority that he had a reasonable basis for forming an opinion as to the “age and understanding” of a young person. [Emphasis in original; paras. 29 and 34.]

 

[medaid]

Obviously the kid wasn't too learning disabled to learn how to jack cars. Gimme a break...

It was a crap ruling...

 

[armyvern]

Obviously the kid wasn't too learning disabled to learn how to jack cars. Gimme a break...

It was a crap ruling...

Obviously the cops had dealt with him before too ... and had them stick.

Wonder why this one didn't??

Perhaps this time they just read him his rights, got him to sign the waiver ... and just carried on like he was "normal" - despite having had previous experience in dealing with him and knowing better?

Does one need to know how to read to jack cars?? I'm just curious ... nothing says what the kids learning disability or education level was - and seeing as how the ruling makes specific reference to that topic in this particular case ... I'm thinking that it is kind of relevant.

 

[NL_engineer]

Does one need to know how to read to jack cars?? I'm just curious ... nothing says what the kids learning disability or education level was - and seeing as how the ruling makes specific reference to that topic in this particular case ... I'm thinking that it is kind of relevant.

His rights would have been read to him, so even if he had problems understanding what he reads, it shouldn't affect the case IMO.

As for the waver I guess it goes something like:

                                      I ______________ understand my rights, as read to me by the arresting officer; and wish not to use them at this time


                                              Signed _________________________ on the ______ day of the ____________ month of the __________year

 

[Eye In The Sky]

With some of the crap rolling out of the Supreme Court and our entire Youth Justice system is anyone really surprised by this?