R v Sinclair
R v Sinclair 2010 SCC 35 is a leading case from the Supreme Court of Canada on a detainee's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically, the case addresses two issues regarding the police's implementation duty under the right to counsel: 1) does a detainee have the right to have a lawyer present during police questioning, and 2) does a detainee have the right to make multiple phone calls to their lawyer. A majority of the Court answered the first question in the negative, and answered the second question in the negative, subject to a change of circumstances. The parties to the case were the appellant, Sinclair, the respondent, the Attorney General of British Columbia, and the following interveners: the Attorney General of Ontario, the D
Wikipage redirect
primaryTopic
R v Sinclair
R v Sinclair 2010 SCC 35 is a leading case from the Supreme Court of Canada on a detainee's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically, the case addresses two issues regarding the police's implementation duty under the right to counsel: 1) does a detainee have the right to have a lawyer present during police questioning, and 2) does a detainee have the right to make multiple phone calls to their lawyer. A majority of the Court answered the first question in the negative, and answered the second question in the negative, subject to a change of circumstances. The parties to the case were the appellant, Sinclair, the respondent, the Attorney General of British Columbia, and the following interveners: the Attorney General of Ontario, the D
has abstract
R v Sinclair 2010 SCC 35 is a ...... R v Willier and R v McCrimmon.
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
32,415,623
Wikipage revision ID
700,678,349
case-name
citations
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 310
decided-date
2010-10-08
Dissent
LeBel and Fish JJ.
Docket
full-case-name
Trent Terrence Sinclair v Her Majesty the Queen
heard-date
2009-05-12
history
Judgment for the Crown in the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
JoinDissent
JoinMajority
Deschampes, Rothstein, and Cromwell JJ.
majority
McLachlin C.J. and Charron J.
ratio
A detainee does not generally ...... een a change of circumstances.
A detainee does not have the right to have counsel present during a police interrogation.
ruling
appeal dismissed
subject
hypernym
comment
R v Sinclair 2010 SCC 35 is a ...... rney General of Ontario, the D
@en
label
R v Sinclair
@en