R v Hebert Case Analysis Essay Example For Students

R v Hebert Case Analysis Essay Case: R v. Hebert Facts of Case Judges: Dickson, Robert George Brian; Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; La Forest, G? ©rard V. ; LHeureux-Dub? ©, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter decarteret; McLachlin, Beverley Neil Hebert was suspected of having robbed the Klondike Inn. After the police located Hebert, they placed him under arrest and informed him of his rights, and took him to the R. C. M. P detachment in Whitehorse. Hebert contacted counsel and obtained legal advice regarding his right to refuse to give a statement. After exercising his right to contact counsel, Hebert was interrogated by the police. During the interrogation, Hebert indicated that he did not desire to make a statement. In attempt to get information out of Hebert, the police placed him in a cell with an undercover officer. The officer was dressed in plain clothes and was posing as a suspect under arrest by the police. The undercover office proceeded to engage Hebert in a conversation, during which Hebert made several incriminating statements. This action violated ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Judge excluded the statements made by Hebert to the undercover officer, and he was later acquitted of the charges. However, the Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, concluding that the police had not violated ss. 7 and/or 10(b) of the Charter. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, concluding that the police had violated neither Heberts right to counsel. For the court, the right to counsel did not disqualify the police from questioning the accused in the absence of counsel after counsel had been contacted. Furthermore, the court asserted that the right to remain silent, as a fundamental principle of Justice, did not prohibit the accused being questioned by undercover police officers. As such, the court set aside Heberts acquittal and ordered a new trial. Hebert appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. Issues involved in the Appeal The Supreme Court of Canada considered two issues: First, whether the police had violated the accused Charter of Rights when obtaining the statements. Secondly, if in fact they did violate his rights, whether they should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. Under section 7, the state is not allowed to use its power to overrule the suspects will and reverse his choice to speak to the authority or remain silent. Therefore, the ourts must adopt an approach to interrogation which emphasizes the right of the statements, which have been obtained unfairly. There is nothing that prohibits the police from questioning an accused after they have retained counsel. Police persuasion does not breach the right to silence. In addition, the right only applies after detention. Thirdly, the right does not affect voluntary statements made to cell mates. Fourth, a distinction needs to be made between using undercover police to observe the accused and using undercover police to elicit information in violation to the accused right to remain silent. Last, even where there is violation of the suspects rights, the evidence, where permitted, may be admitted. Only when the court is satisfied with the possibility that its reception would be likely to bring the administration of Justice into disrepute can the evidence be rejected under s. 24(2) of the Charter. Decision McLachlin writing for majority. Majority held that the evidence was inadmissible and upheld the trial Judges ruling. Majority found that the right to silence was a principle of fundamental Justice and as such was protected under section 7. An accused right cannot be undermined hrough acts of police trickery when being held in custody by police. However, if the accused were to reveal information to an informer or undercover agent of their own free will then the statements could be used against them. Majority concluded that: 1 . Police violated the rights of the accused when obtaining the statements under section 7 of the Charter 2. The evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Ratio Decidendi Constitutional issue was whether the police had violated Heberts right to remain silent in process of obtaining information. Basic doctrines from the principals of undamental Justice were examined which involved (1) investigating common law rules (2) examining the Charter (3) examining the purpose of the right to remain silent. 1 . Common Law Rules McLachlin concluded that there was a person whose right was at risk by the processes that occurred. Hebert had the right to choose whether to make a statement to the police or to remain silent. 2. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms The primary viewpoint of the Charter was the dominance of the rights and the the right to counsel under s. IO(b) and the right against self-incrimination under s. 1(c). In addition, as mentioned earlier, the right remain silent was an issue. Majority found that these rights granted Hebert right to be free of coercion by the police, but also the right to choose whether or not to give a statement. 3. Right to Remain Silent In this case, the court held that the right to silence was a principle of fundamental justice (core values within t he Justice system that must triumph over these rights for the good of society). Statements cannot be achieved through police deception and silence cannot be used to make facilitate any presumption of guilt; therefore, The Bill of Rights EssayIn R v Hebert, the accused exercised his right to remain silent, yet authorities went forth with deception and tricked the accused into making various incriminatory statements. Using deception violates their right and excludes all statements as evidence. It is important because if these statements are he only evidence that would be used in trial, this can be a clear example of injustice and would lead to disrepute and power bias. responsibility for a perceived misdeed- is no doubt a deep seated impulse in all of us (Stuart, 2008, preface). Stuart (2008) uses Miranda v Arizona as the stem to his discussion on right to remain silent. He goes on to claim that most Americans assume that once a suspect is in custody, they are most likely guilty (preface). Miranda v Arizona was a very important case that concluded that prosecution may not use statements that came from interrogation unless demonstrated that safe procedures ere used to protect against self incrimination (Stuart, 2008). R v Hebert goes along this case in part due to the fact that the right to remain silent also protects one from self-incrimination. Ernesto Miranda was a illiterate man that had minimum, if any, knowledge about Justice procedures, and therefore, was influenced to confession. Living in a country that accepts various of cultures every day, it is of great importance to ensure procedural fairness in order to limit possibility of false confessions and incriminating statements that can be used. As well, it is of great importance to ommunicate the rights individuals have when being detained. Being detained can invoke many different emotions and feelings, and can cause individuals to make statements they otherwise would have not. Even the smallest misstatement can be interpreted a completely different way that does not favor the person accused. In addition to the above, the right to remain silent also promotes the need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt and presumes innocence. Whilst banning torture and deceit, with this right, the prosecution needs to acquire evidence that will prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that this individual is guilty. Without the right to remain silent, incriminatory statements would be made, interpreted, and used to convict individuals that would in most cases be innocent. The right to remain silent is built on the presumption of innocence, requiring the prosecution to prove guilt. The allowance of various statements obtained by police would illustrate that the prosecution has failed to deliver the burden (Hocking and Manville, 2001). The possibility of planned incrimination where one is coerced on the outside to take blame for another also adds to the need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt from he prosecution. In conclusion, R v Hebert is of significance to miscarriages of Justice because it is the stem that protects individuals from the coercive power that may lead to wrongful convictions. It protects individuals from being influences by interrogation tactics by authorities. In addition, it protects individuals from allows prosecution to utilize possibly incriminating statements as sole evidence for conviction prosecution needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It also protects people that are not knowledgeable or can not communicate in certain languages from incriminating hemselves. Individuals are also protected from the abuse of power by police in the possible use of trickery into obtaining information. Police goals are ones of wanting to lay charges and convictions, which can influence them to abuse their powers in order to achieve those goals. The violation of rights is unjust and can lead to wrongful convictions. Lastly, it protects police from interpreting statements in ways that can be incriminating. The right to remain silent allows for no interpretation, controls police power abuse, and strives for fairness throughout all processes. esumption of innocence, or a growing legal fiction. Macquarie Law Journal, 1(1), 63-90. R v Hebert. 2 S. C. R. 151 . Retrieved from http://scc. lexum. org/decisia-scc-csc/ scc- csc/scc-csc/en/item/625/index. do Sherrin, C. (2008). The charter and protection against wrongful conviction: Good, bad or irrelevant?. Supreme Court Law Review, 377-414. Stuart, G. (2008). Miranda: The story of ameriacs right to remain silent. (pp. 1-205). Arizona: University of Arizona Press. CRM4310B University of Ottawa student # 6080233 Professor Campbell October 24, 2013