|
''R v Suberu'' (2009 SCC 33 ) is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9 and section 10 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. The Court applied the new test for detention created in the companion case of ''R v Grant'' and ruled on the timing of when an individual is required to be informed of his or her rights to counsel after being arrested or detained. ==Background== On June 13, 2008, Musibau Suberu and a colleague made a one-day shopping trip east of Toronto to purchase merchandise, pre-paid shopping cards, and gift certificates from Wal-Mart and the LCBO using a stolen credit card. The staff of a store in Cobourg, Ontario were warned to look out for the pair, after they reportedly bought $100 gift certificates from a different store using the stolen credit card. When Suberu's associate went to buy some merchandise at the Cobourg store with a $100 gift certificate, store employees began to stall Suberu's associate. A police constable unaware of the background was dispatched to respond to a call about a male person using a stolen credit card at the Cobourg store. An officer who arrived earlier radioed the police constable to inform him there were two male suspects. When the police constable arrived, the other officer was dealing with Suberu's associate. Suberu walked past the police constable, and said "he did this, not me, so I guess I can go." The police constable followed Suberu outside and said "Wait a minute. I need to talk to you before you go anywhere" while Suberu was getting into the driver's side of a minivan. While Suberu was seated in the driver's seat of the van, the police constable asked him some quick questions about who he was with in the store, where they had come from, and who owned the van. After this conversation, the police constable was informed by radio dispatch of the description and license plate of the van that had been involved with using the stolen credit card. The minivan Suberu was in matched the description and license plate. When the constable looked into the van, he saw bags of merchandise from Wal-Mart and the LCBO. Suberu was arrested for fraud. He was informed of the constable's reasons for doing so. Before the constable could read him his rights to counsel, Suberu made statements protesting his innocence and began asking questions of the constable. The police constable had a short exchange with Suberu but soon told Suberu "just listen" and read the rights to counsel. There was no issue about the timing of the rights to counsel in relation to the arrest. The issue was whether the police constable should have informed Suberu of his rights to counsel at the outset of their interaction, arguing that the constable's instruction to "wait" meant that there was a detention, triggering section 10 of the ''Charter''. At the Ontario Court of Justice, the trial judge found that there was a necessary "momentary investigative detention". However, the trial judge went on to find that the police were not required to inform Suberu of his rights to counsel before he was asked preliminary or exploratory questions to determine if there was any involvement by Suberu. Suberu was convicted of possession of property obtained by crime, possession of a stolen credit card, and possession of a stolen debit card. At the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the summary conviction appeal judge upheld the conviction, but on the basis that section 10(b) of the ''Charter'' is never engaged by investigative detentions. The Court of Appeal for Ontario rejected the summary conviction appeal judge's proposition, but dismissed the appeal on the basis that the wording of "without delay" in section 10(b) of the ''Charter'' allows for a brief interlude at the beginning of an investigative detention to allow police to ask exploratory questions to determine whether further detention is necessary. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Suberu」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|