Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Right to silence
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Canada=== In Canada, the right to silence is protected under the common law confessions rule, and [[Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 7]] and [[Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 11(c)]] of the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]. The accused may not be compelled as a witness against himself in [[criminal proceedings]], and therefore only [[Voluntariness|voluntary]] statements made to [[policing in Canada|police]] are [[Admissible evidence|admissible]] as [[Evidence (law)|evidence]]. Prior to an accused being informed of their right to [[legal counsel]], any statements they make to police are considered involuntarily compelled and are inadmissible as evidence. After being informed of the right to counsel, the accused may choose to voluntarily answer questions and those statements would be admissible.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|last=Dufraimont|first=Lisa|date=2008|title=The Common Law Confessions Rule in the Charter Era: Current Law and Future Directions|url=https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1116&context=sclr |access-date=14 November 2021 |publisher=Osgoode Hall Law School Digital Commons}}</ref> These rights to silence exist only when the suspect is knowingly dealing with a person in authority. When the subject is unaware he is dealing with the police, such as in the case of an undercover operation, these protections do not exist unless the authority figure actively elicits a statement. Statements made to police officers during undercover operations almost always comply with the confessions rule unless the conduct of the police was deemed so egregious that it would "shock the community." However, section 7 rights might still become implicated in the case of elicitation, after which a court could only admit the statement [[Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|if it is satisfied that it would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute]].<ref name=":1" /> Under the Charter, an arrested person has the right: * To be informed promptly of the reasons therefor. * To retain and instruct counsel without delay and be informed of that right. * To have the validity of the detention determined by way of [[habeas corpus]] and to be released if the detention is not lawful.<ref>{{Cite web |date=1999-11-09|title=Charterpedia - Section 10(a) β Right to be informed of reasons for detention or arrest|url=https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art10a.html|access-date=2021-11-14 |publisher=Department of Justice, Government of Canada}}</ref> The Canadian Charter warning reads (varies by police service): "You are under arrest for _________ (charge); do you understand? You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. We will provide you with a toll-free telephone lawyer referral service, if you do not have your own lawyer. Anything you do say can and will be used in court as evidence. Do you understand? Would you like to speak to a lawyer?" A more detailed version: <blockquote>I am arresting you for (charge). It is my duty to inform you that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. You may call any lawyer you want. There is a 24-hour telephone service available which provides a legal aid [[duty lawyer]] who can give you legal advice in private. This advice is given without charge and the lawyer can explain the legal aid plan to you. If you wish to contact a legal aid duty lawyer, I can provide you with a telephone number. Do you understand? Do you want to call a lawyer? You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence in court.</blockquote> Section 14 of the Charter further provides that a translator must be made available so that the person can understand the proceedings against them. This right to a translator extends to the deaf. In [[Quebec]], the Charter warning is read in [[Canadian French]]. In [[New Brunswick]] and [[Ottawa]], the warning is read in either English or French, and the officer is required to ask the person's language of preference before issuing the warning.<ref>{{Cite web |date=1999-11-09 |title=Charterpedia - Section 14 β Right to an interpreter |url=https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art14.html |access-date=2021-11-14 |publisher=Department of Justice, Government of Canada}}</ref> In the rest of Canada, the Charter warning is read in [[Canadian English]]. While [[Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 10b]] of the Charter guarantees the right to be provided legal counsel, Canadian law only entitles criminal suspects under the age of 18 to have counsel actually be present throughout the entire interrogation. Once an adult suspect has asserted their right to counsel, the police are obliged to hold off in attempting to obtain evidence until the suspect has had a reasonable opportunity to contact legal counsel. However, after that opportunity has been exhausted, there is no guarantee of further access until the interrogation is over. Additionally, even if the suspect directly asserts his decision to remain silent, the police may continue the interrogation. There is no automatic exclusion of evidence obtained after such an assertion, however it risks breaching the confessions rule if a court finds that it created reasonable doubt to whether the confession was obtained under "oppressive conditions," a determination which is made upon the totality of evidence.<ref>{{Cite web |date=1999-11-09|title=Charterpedia - Section 10(b) β Right to counsel|url=https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art10b.html|access-date=2021-11-14 |publisher=Department of Justice, Government of Canada}}</ref><ref name=":1" /> A leading case on the right to silence in Canada is ''[[R v Singh|R. v. Singh]]'', where a person in police custody invoked his right to silence 18 times yet was continually questioned. In a 5β4 majority, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that there was no ancillary right under section 7 to have the police stop questioning a suspect after the asserted their right to silence. The court did, however, acknowledge that repeated police questioning after a defendant has asserted their right to silence raises doubts regarding the admissibility of further evidence under the confessions rule, though that was not the finding in the case.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2001-01-01|title=Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Search |url=https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2390/index.do |access-date=2021-11-14 |publisher=Supreme Court of Canada}}</ref> Another Supreme Court case, ''R. v. Hodgson'', clarified that the right to silence only applied to the state and could not be used to exclude confessions made to private actors. Although an accused has the right to remain silent and may not be compelled to testify against themselves, where an accused freely chooses to take the [[witness box]] and testify, there is no further right to silence and no general restriction on what kinds of questions they may be required to answer. [[Section Thirteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 13]] of the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] guarantees that witnesses may not have any incriminating evidence they gave as testimony used against them in separate proceedings. In effect, a person can be compelled to give involuntary self-incriminating evidence, but only where that evidence is to be used against a third party.<ref>{{Cite web |date=1999-11-09|title=Charterpedia - Section 13 β Protection against self-incrimination |url=https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art13.html|access-date=2021-11-14 |publisher=Department of Justice, Government of Canada}}</ref> In the past, most cases, except for certain sex offences or where the victims were children, spouses could not be compelled to testify against each other. However, after Bill C-32, The Victim's Bill of Rights Act, this is no longer the case. Spouses retain the right to assert privilege, and to refuse to answer questions about communications during the marriage.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)