Talk:R. v. Therens
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
[edit] This brief is flat out wrong
Check the SCC decision on the website... it did violate his right to retain counsel.
Per Dickson C.J. and McIntyre, Lamer and Le Dain JJ.: Respondent's rights under s. 10(b) of the Charter were violated. A person who complied with a demand, pursuant to s. 235(1) of the Criminal Code, to accompany a police officer to a police station and to submit to a breathalyser test is "detained" within the meaning of s. 10 of the Charter and that person is therefore entitled to be informed of his right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.
This really screwed me up studying for Constitutional Law! I modified the wiki entry.
