R. v. Cook (D.R.), (1998) 230 N.R. 83 (SCC)

• Judge: Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 01, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 230 N.R. 83 (SCC);128 CCC (3d) 1;230 NR 83;[1998] CarswellBC 2001;55 CRR (2d) 189;57 BCLR (3d) 215;[1999] 5 WWR 582;182 WAC 1;112 BCAC 1;[1998] SCJ No 68 (QL);1998 CanLII 802 (SCC);[1998] 2 SCR 597;164 DLR (4th) 1;19 CR (5th) 1

R. v. Cook (D.R.) (1998), 230 N.R. 83 (SCC)

MLB Headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [1998] N.R. TBEd. OC.002

Deltonia R. Cook (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada (intervenor)

(25852)

Indexed As: R. v. Cook (D.R.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci,

Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

October 1, 1998.

Summary:

The accused American citizen, suspected of a Vancouver murder, was arrested and detained in the United States by U.S. au­thorities following an extradition request by Canadian officials. Two R.C.M.P. officers questioned the accused in the U.S. The accused was questioned for 20 minutes before being advised of his right to counsel (Charter, s. 10(b)). The officers, when they did advise the accused of his rights, did so in such a misleading fashion as to effectively deprive the accused of the opportunity to make an informed choice concerning his rights. The accused gave a statement denying involvement in the murder. At trial, when the Crown sought to introduce the statement for the sole purpose of impeaching the accused's credibility on cross-examination, the accused claimed a violation of his s. 10(b) Charter rights and sought exclusion of the statement under s. 24(2). The trial judge ruled that the accused's s. 10(b) rights were denied, but declined to exclude the evidence. The accused was subsequently convicted. The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 85 B.C.A.C. 192; 138 W.A.C. 192, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, JJ., dis­senting, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a new trial. The court held that the Charter applied to the actions of Cana­dian police authorities questioning an accused in a foreign jurisdic­tion, where s. 32(1) of the Charter applied and the actions of police did not interfere with the sovereign authority of the foreign state (i.e., no extra-territorial application of the Charter in this case). The accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights were denied and the statement should have been excluded from evidence under s. 24(2).

Civil Rights - Topic 3126

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi­criminal proceedings - Fair hearing - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3157

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi­criminal proceedings - Right to just and fair trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - Denial of or interfer­ence with - What constitutes - The accused United States citizen, suspected of murder in Canada, was arrested in the U.S. by U.S. authorities following an extradition request by Canadian authorities - Cana­dian police flew to the U.S. to question the accused - The accused had been advised by U.S. authorities of his "Miranda" rights, but had not seen a lawyer - Canadian police questioned the accused for 20 min­utes before advising him of his right to counsel - However, their advice was de­liberately misleading and did not afford the accused an opportunity to make an informed decision as to whether to speak with them or talk with a lawyer - The accused gave a statement to police denying any involvement in the murder - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was violated - See paragraphs 53 to 61.

Civil Rights - Topic 8306

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application of - Territorial limits - The accused U.S. citizen, suspected of murder in Canada, was arrested in the U.S. by U.S. authorities following an extradition request by Canadian authorities - Cana­dian police flew to the U.S. to question the accused - The accused alleged a violation of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel - At issue was whether the Charter applied to the accused - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Charter applied out­side Canada if "(1) the impugned act falls within s. 32(1) of the Charter; and (2) the application of the Charter to the actions of the Canadian detectives in the United States does not ... interfere with the sover­eign authority of the foreign state and thereby generate an extraterritorial effect." - The court held that "on the jurisdictional basis of nationality, the Charter applies to the actions of Canadian law enforcement authorities on foreign territory (which satisfies s. 32(1)), provided that the appli­cation of the Charter standards would not interfere with the sovereign authority of the foreign state." - The actions of Cana­dian police, in this case, did not interfere with the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; Canadian criminal law standards were not imposed on foreign officials and procedures - See paragraphs 21 to 52.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - An accused, after his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was denied, gave a statement to police denying in­volvement in a murder - The Crown sought admission of the statement solely to impeach the accused's credibility on cross-examination - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the courts below erred in considering the intended use of the state­ment in their s. 24(2) analysis respecting whether to exclude the statement - The court stated that the factors to be con­sidered were (1) the fairness of the trial, (2) the seriousness of the Charter breach and (3) the effect of exclusion on the repute of the administra­tion of justice - The court stated that "a statement that is largely or even wholly exculpatory should still be considered 'conscriptive' evidence if an accused was ... conscripted against himself by being compelled, in breach of his Charter rights, to provide evidence which could later be used against him" - The evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2), where admission of con­scriptive evidence that would not otherwise have been discovered rendered the trial unfair and where the seriousness of the Charter breach, by itself, warranted exclu­sion - See paragraphs 62 to 70.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Whether evidence excluded for all purposes - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "it is not necessary to speculate what 'special circumstances' would be required to allow the admission of evidence for a limited purpose that was not otherwise admissible. In our view those circumstances would be very rare indeed. ... there should be no difference, for the purposes of deciding whether to exclude evidence under s. 24(2), between the admission of evidence generally and admission for the limited purpose of chal­lenging the credibility of the accused" - The court stated that "while the distinction between incriminating and exculpatory statements may be important for some purposes ... it is not a factor that should influence the s. 24(2) analysis" - See para­graphs 71 to 76.

Criminal Law - Topic 4375.2

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions re­garding prior inconsistent statements - The accused, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in the United States pursuant to a provi­sional ar­rest warrant issued in connection with an ex­tradition request made by Cana­dian au­thori­ties - The accused made an exculpa­tory statement while there to Cana­dian au­thorities while awaiting extradition - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's jury charge on the accus­ed's prior inconsistent statements was ade­quate - The Supreme Court of Canada per L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, JJ., opin­ed that the jury charge was inadequate - The other members of the court found it unnecessary to determine the issue - See paragraphs 147 to 149.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Kuldip, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 618; 114 N.R. 284; 43 O.A.C. 340, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Terry (R.S.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207; 197 N.R. 105; 76 B.C.A.C. 25; 125 W.A.C. 25, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Calder (M.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 660; 194 N.R. 52; 90 O.A.C. 18, refd to. [para. 17].

Ship S.S. Lotus, Re (1927), P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 9, refd to. [para. 24].

Schmidt v. Canada et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 500; 76 N.R. 12; 20 O.A.C. 161; 58 C.R.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 280; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 18; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 28].

Argentina (Republic) v. Mellino, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 536; 76 N.R. 51; 80 A.R. 1; 52 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 262; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 334; 40 D.L.R.(4th) 74; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 289, refd to. [para. 28].

United States of America v. Allard and Charette, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 564; 75 N.R. 260; 8 Q.A.C. 178, refd to. [para. 28].

Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 841; 225 N.R. 297, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Pozniak (W.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 310; 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Whitford (B.E.) (1997), 196 A.R. 97; 141 W.A.C. 97; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 81].

Reference Re Power of Municipal Council to Dismiss a Chief Constable (1957), 7 D.L.R.(2d) 222 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Perpetual Trustee Co., [1955] A.C. 457 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 82].

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 85].

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; 118 N.R. 340; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 94, refd to. [para. 85].

Daniels v. White, [1968] S.C.R. 517, refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Zingre, Wuest and Reiser, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 392; 38 N.R. 272; 10 Man.R.(2d) 62, refd to. [para. 92].

National Corn Growers' Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 92].

Treacy v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1971] A.C. 537 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 92].

Chung Chi Cheung v. R., [1939] A.C. 160 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; 62 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 96].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 97].

United States v. Aluminium Co. of America (1945), 148 F.2d 416, refd to. [para. 99].

United States v. Watchmakers of Switzer­land Information Centre Inc. (1955), 133 F. Supp. 40; (1955), 134 F. Supp 710, refd to. [para. 99].

Nottebohm Case (second phase) (Judgment of April 6, 1955), I.C.J. Reports 1955, p. 4, refd to. [para. 102].

Shamlou v. Canada (Minister of Citizen­ship and Immigration) (1995), 103 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 103].

Kanesharan v. Canada (Minister of Citi­zenship and Immigration) (1996), 120 F.T.R. 67 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 103].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 8 C.R.R. 193; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 110].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 2 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 64 C.R.(3d) 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 28 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 145].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 10(b), sect. 24(2), sect. 32(1) [para. 10].

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, Schedule E [para. 103].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Akehurst, Michael, Jurisdiction in Interna­tional Law (1972-73), 46 B.Y.I.L. 145, p. 154 [para. 98].

Arbour, J.-Maurice, Droit international public (2nd Ed. 1992), pp. 59 [para. 92]; 236, 237 [para. 98]; 238, 239, 240 [para. 102].

Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public Inter­national Law (4th Ed. 1990), pp. 301 [para. 98]; 307 [paras. 94, 99]; 308 [para. 99].

Combacau, Jean, and Sur, Serge, Droit International Public (2nd Ed. 1995), p. 350 [para. 98].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 330 [para. 92].

Fox, James R., Dictionary of International and Comparative Law (2nd Ed. 1997), p. 147 [para. 25].

Henkin, Louis, International Law: Cases and Materials (2nd Ed. 1987), p. 826 [para. 98].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1992 Looseleaf Ed.) (1997 Update, Release 2), vol. 2, pp. 34-14, 34-15 [para. 85].

Kindred, Hugh M., International Law - Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied in Canada (5th Ed. 1993), pp. 423 [para. 24]; 431 [para. 98]; 432 [paras. 98, 102].

Lew, Julian D.M., The Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction of English Courts (1978), 27 I.C.L.Q. 169, generally [para. 96].

Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise (8th Ed. 1955), vol. 1, p. 656 [para. 40].

Oxman, Bernard H., Jurisdiction of States, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law (1987), vol. 10, p. 279 [para. 27].

Randelzhofer, Albrecht, Nationality, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law (1985), vol. 8, p. 418 [para. 40].

Schachter, Oscar, International Law in Theory and Practice (1991), pp. 254 [para. 26]; 262 [para. 98].

Waldman, Lorne, Immigration Law and Practice (1992 Looseleaf Ed.), § 8.217.4 [para. 103].

Weis, Paul, Nationality and Statelessness in International Law (1979), p. 96 [para. 40].

Williams, Sharon A., and de Mestral, A.L.C., An Introduction to International Law (2nd Ed. 1987), p. 290 [para. 40].

Counsel:

Neil L. Cobb and Kathleen Mell, for the appellant;

Gregory J. Fitch, for the respondent;

S. David Frankel, Q.C., for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Cobb, McCabe & Co., Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., for the respondent;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada.

This appeal was heard on June 17, 1998, before Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 1, 1998, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Cory and Iacobucci, JJ. (Lamer, C.J.C., Major and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 77;

Bastarache, J. (Gonthier, J., concurring), concurring in result - see paragraphs 78 to 116;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (McLachlin, J., concurring), dissenting - see para­graphs 117 to 151.