| 翻訳と辞書 |
| R. v. Burlingham ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
R v Burlingham
''R v Burlingham'', () 2 S.C.R. 206 is a leading decision on the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to counsel under section 10(b) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' and the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).
==Background==
Terrence Burlingham was arrested for the October 1984 murders of Denean Worms and Brenda Hughes in Cranbrook, British Columbia. Over a period of four days, he was interrogated by police despite his continued request to see a lawyer. During the interrogation, the police suggested that his parents would be hurt by delaying things and made disparaging remarks about the accused's lawyer. The police later offered to reduce the charge to second degree murder if Burlingham were willing to disclose the location of the murder weapon. Eventually, he agreed and took them to the location where he had hidden the gun that was used to kill Hughes. The crown, however, had not consented to the deal and did not follow through with the bargain. The trial judge found that the deal was an honest mistake. However, since Burlingham did not have access to a lawyer, his rights under section 10(b) were violated. Despite the violation, the murder weapon and several incriminating statements were still admitted. Burlingham was convicted of first degree murder.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the decision with McEachern C.J. in dissent.
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 Burlingham」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|