Case Brief: “R. v. Therens” S.C.R. 613


Add to cart
Essay #: 063048
Total text length is 5,279 characters (approximately 3.6 pages).

Excerpts from the Paper

The beginning:
Case Brief: "R. v. Therens" S.C.R. 613
Style of Cause
R. v. Therens (1985) S.C.R. 613
Procedural history
The case arrived at the Supreme Court via an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (1983), 5 C.C.C. (3d) 409, 148 D.L.R. (3d) 672, 23 Sask.R. 81, 33 C.R. (3d) 204, 5 C.R.R. 157, 20 M.V.R. 8, (1983) 4 W.W.R. 385. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown’s efforts to have overturned an earlier dismissal by Muir Prov. Ct.J. (1982) 70 C.C.C. (2d) 468, 16 M.V.R. 285, on a charge under s. 236(1) of the Criminal Code.
The respondent lost control of his motor vehicle and hit a tree. A police officer demanded that the respondent give samples of his breath for analysis as per section 235(1) of the...
The end:
.....olice officer detained the individual in such a manner that the person who had endured the crash really did not have a reasonable opportunity to secure counsel; I say this because, though he could have presumably requested counsel at the police station, he was denied the opportunity to do so because he was not apprised of his rights to get counsel on the phone. At the same time, it is clear that an individual, as per the Charter, who is being compelled to give incriminating evidence (with the threat of criminal sanction if he declines) must be given the opportunity to secure legal counsel. The gentleman in question was obviously denied this and this is why all three courts decided that the evidence against him should be thrown out of court.