R. v. Manninen, (1983) 1 O.A.C. 199 (CA)

• Judge: MacKinnon, A.C.J.O., Martin and Blair, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 03, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1983), 1 O.A.C. 199 (CA)

R. v. Manninen (1983), 1 O.A.C. 199 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Manninen

Indexed As: R. v. Manninen

Ontario Court of Appeal

MacKinnon, A.C.J.O., Martin and Blair, JJ.A.

November 28, 1983.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of, inter alia, armed robbery and use of a firearm while committing an indictable offence. The accused appealed his convictions for these offences.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial, because the trial judge erred in admitting the accused's statements into evidence.

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - The accused gave statements to the police (one incriminating) - The evidence was obtained in a manner which wilfully and deliberately violated his right to retain and instruct counsel without delay in s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The Ontario Court of Appeal excluded the statement from evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, because to include them not only could but would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 29 to 37.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - Denial of - What constitutes - Upon being arrested and cautioned, the accused told the police that he would say nothing until he saw his lawyer and requested to see his lawyer - The police and the accused remained on the premises for two hours before leaving for the police station, yet they denied him the use of an available telephone - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the police violated the accused's right to retain and instruct counsel without delay in s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by continuing to question him (particularly a question presuming guilt) - See paragraphs 22 to 28.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The accused gave statements to the police (one incriminating) - The evidence was obtained in a manner which wilfully and deliberately violated his right to retain and instruct counsel without delay in s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The Ontario Court of Appeal excluded the statements from evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, because to include them not only could but would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 29 to 37.

Cases Noticed:

Brownridge v. The Queen (1972), 7 C.C.C.(2d) 418 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Collins (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 141, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Rothman (1981), 59 C.C.C.(2d) 30, refd to. [para. 34].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 10(b) [paras. 22, 29, 31]; sect. 24(2) [paras. 29 to 31, 37].

Counsel:

Brendan P. Evans, for the respondent;

Michael J. Herman, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard before MacKinnon, A.C.J.O., Martin and Blair, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, on October 3, 1983. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by MacKinnon, A.C.J.O., and released on November 28, 1983.