A couple of points:
In addition to informing an arrested/detained person of his rights to speak to a lawyer, the police must also provide that person with a reasonable opportunity to speak to a lawyer. This does not necessarily mean the lawyer of the person's choice, although that would usually be the first lawyer contacted. If that lawyer is unavailable, the person will be given the opportunity to speak to alternative counsel, most often duty counsel, which may happen either in person or by phone. Once the consultation has occurred, and the person expresses satisfaction with his consultation and an understanding of his rights, the police may proceed with an interrogation without counsel present, and without allowing further consultations with counsel (absent a change in circumstances of the kind described by the SCC and referred to in my earlier posts).
In terms of what evidence can be used against a suspect, any relevant admissible evidence may be used. The question of admissibility depends on the facts - in the case of statements made by the suspect, admissibility depends on how and when the statements were made. Some statements made prior to a person being informed of their rights are admissible.
For example, imagine a police officer responds to a 911 call from an old lady, reporting screaming and crashing sounds at her neighbour's house. A police officer arrives at the scene, goes to the door of the house, and knocks. A man answers the door, and the police officer says "Is everything alright here sir?" To which the man responds, "I didn't mean to hit her so hard. I was just so angry. I think I might have killed her."
In those circumstances, the statement will be admissible. The man was not a suspect, was not detained or arrested, at the time the statement was made. No Charter rights were breached, and the statement is relevant evidence.
By contrast, if the police officer then asks the man exactly what happened, or asks him to re-enact the scene, and does so without first informing the man of his rights to counsel, then the subsequent statements or re-enactment would likely be inadmissible. This is because the man is now clearly a suspect in the investigation, rather than a mere witness.
|