Quote:
Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire
We have similar rights under the Charter, but they're not called Miranda Rights.
Upon being arrested, any Canadian 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.
Additionally, they must then be notified that they have the right to remain silent, but that anything they say may be given as evidence. Say is the operative word. No mention of anything a person has said up until that point.
Because, just as in the States, we have the right to not be a witness in a proceeding against ourselves (layman's terms, self-incrimination), even if we do incriminate ourselves before acknowledging that we understand our rights, the incrimination can be tossed out as inadmissable.
Assuming I understand this correctly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_Rights#Canada
Oh! And additionally, if you invoke your right to prompt legal counsel, law enforcement in Canada DOES have to stop their investigation into your role in the crime to allow you sufficient time to contact your counsel. |
From your Wiki link:
Quote:
|
A more detailed version: "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."
|
No where there does it say he has the right to remain silent.
It does say in there that anything you say will be given in evidence if you choose to say something.
It does say you have the ability to contact a lawyer, but implies that a lawyer doesn't need to be present for what you say to be admissible in court. This means your lawyer can inform you not to say anything, but if you choose to ignore him the evidence will be admissible. If you are not given the ability to contact counsel, the evidence likely will be inadmissible, but doesn't automatically need to be. From my courses, I understand that any evidence given under duress will be deemed inadmissible by the justice. I could probably find the precedents if it really mattered.