R. v. Hawkins (J.G.), (1993) 107 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 179 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major, JJ.
• Citation: (1993), 107 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 179 (SCC),20 CR (4th) 55,107 Nfld & PEIR 179,1993 CanLII 140 (SCC),[1993] 2 SCR 157,[1993] CarswellNfld 12,14 CRR (2d) 243
• Date: 28 April 1993

R. v. Hawkins (J.G.) (1993), 107 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 179 (SCC);

    336 A.P.R. 179

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Her Majesty the Queen v. John Gordon Hawkins

(No. 23035)

Indexed As: R. v. Hawkins (J.G.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major, JJ.

April 28, 1993.

Summary:

An accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to s. 246.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Newfoundland Provincial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to two months' imprisonment. The accused appealed.

The Newfoundland Court of Appeal, Goodridge, C.J.N., dissenting, in a judgment reported 102 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 91; 323 A.P.R. 91, allowed the appeal, set the conviction aside and ordered a new trial. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Court of Appeal and restored the conviction.

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention - What constitutes - A police officer requested an interview with the accused at his home, place of business or police headquarters, respecting a sexual assault complaint - He agreed to go to headquarters - The officer administered the standard caution, but did not advise of the right to counsel - The accused did not appreciate the seriousness of the complaint and did not feel compelled to answer questions - In convicting the accused, the trial judge referred to the interview statement - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal concluded that the statement should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter where, under s. 10(b), the accused was detained and his right to counsel violated - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no infringement as there was no detention.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of - Interference with - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4608

Right to counsel - General - Right to be advised of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3604].

Civil Rights - Topic 4613

Right to counsel - Requirement of arrest or detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3604 ].

Statutes Noticed:

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

Counsel:

Wayne Gorman, for the appellant;

Alan D. Gold, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 28, 1993, before Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Cory, J., delivered the following judgment of the court orally in both official languages on April 28, 1993: