R. v. J.(J.T.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 755 (1990)
Linked as:
Extract
R. v. J.(J.T.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 755 (1990)
R. v. J.(J.T.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 755
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v.J.(J.T) Respondent andThe Attorney General of Canada,the Attorney General of Quebec,the Attorney General for Alberta and the Attorney General of Newfoundland IntervenersIndexed as: r. v. j.(j.t.)File No.: 20758.1990: March 27; 1990: September 13.Present: Dickson C.J.* and Lamer C.J.** and Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory JJ.on appeal from the court of appeal for manitobaConstitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Right to life, liberty and security of the person -- Right to be presumed innocent -- Constructive murder -- Whether s. 213(a) of the Criminal Code contravened ss. 7 and/or 11(d) of the Charter -- If so, whether justified under s. 1 -- Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 213(a) -- Canadian Charter Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 7, 11(d).Criminal law -- Constructive murder -- Whether s. 213(a) of the Criminal Code contravened ss. 7 and/or 11(d) of the Charter -- If so, whether justified under s. 1.Criminal law -- Young offenders -- Evidence -- Admissibility of statements and actions -- Admissibility dependant on safeguards provided in Young Offenders Act being met -- Act providing that adult relative be present -- Mature 17-year-old interrogated by police -- Youth charged with murder after oral inculpatory statement made -- Youth then asked if wanted to contact lawyer and to have adult relative present -- Adult relative attended briefly and youth advised by lawyer -- Interrogation continued without either lawyer or adult relative present -- More oral inculpatory statements made -- Youth declined to make written statement -- Whether oral inculpatory statements admissible -- Whether compliance with s. 56 of the Young Offenders Act -- Young Offenders Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 110, s. 56.Respondent, a 17-year-old who had been living in a common law relationship and who had fathered a child, was tried in adult court and convicted of first degree murder. After a lengthy evening interrogation at the police station, he made an oral inculpatory statement and was then asked if he wanted an adult relative present. The relative attended and was present for about three minutes of the interrogation. J.T.J. was charged with murder and informed of his right to counsel. His clothing was seized and hair and finger nail scrapings were taken before his lawyer arrived after midnight. The lawyer spoke with J.T.J. and then with the adult relative. The police again interrogated J.T.J. and neither his lawyer nor the adult relative was present. Indeed, the police this time did not ask him if he wished to have an adult relative present. J.T.J. made an oral inculpatory statement during this interrogation but twice refused to make a written statement. En route to a youth detention facility in the very early morning after almost nine hours of custody, the police stopped at site of the crime and asked more questions. J.T.J. responded by nodding or pointing, coupled with some verbal responses.The verdict was overturned on appeal and a new trial directed. J.T.J. was again found guilty of first degree murder and for a second time launched an appeal. On this occasion the appeal was allowed in part and a verdict of manslaughter was substituted for that of first degree murder. The Crown appealed and respondent cross-appealed.The constitutional questions before this Court queried whether s. 213(a) of the Criminal Code contravened ss. 7 and/or 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, if so, whether it was justified by s. 1. Also at issue was whether the provisions of s. 56 of the Young Offenders Act had been complied with so that the statements made by respondent could be admitted.Held (L'Heureux-Dubé J. dissenting): The appeal should ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
