Sign In
Not register? Register Now!
You are here: HomeEssayLaw
Pages:
9 pages/≈2475 words
Sources:
Level:
APA
Subject:
Law
Type:
Essay
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 38.88
Topic:

The Right to Remain Silent for Arrested Persons (Essay Sample)

Instructions:

The task was to give a case commentary on the right to remain silent for arrested persons. The sample is about a case on the same right basing the argument on the case of R versus Singh.

source..
Content:

Case Commentary on the Right to Remain Silent for Arrested Persons
Author’s name
University Name
R. v Singh is a case that sheds light on the s.7 Charter right of silence CITATION ADR14 \l 1033 (KEAN & McKEOWN, 2014). The appellant, Mr. Singh, contests the decision of the trial judge to convict him based on the statements he made during police interrogation sessions. The Canadian constitution provides for the right not to speak for arrested persons and subsequent access to a counsel CITATION CHR03 \l 1033 (MOORE, 1997-2003). In this regard, the arrested persons are protected from making involuntary statements that might be as a result of coercion or threats from the police CITATION ADR14 \l 1033 (KEAN & McKEOWN, 2014). The common right to remain silent requires that, without any legal or statutory compulsions, no person is obliged to give information in response to police questioning.
Summary of the Facts in the Case
The appellant Mr. Singh is contesting a decision by the trial judge to admit the statements he made during interrogation as evidence in the case. The trial judge used the accused statements presented by the police to convict him. In this case, the appellant asserts that his right not to talk and access to legal counsel was ignored.
He seeks to nullify the admissibility of the self-incriminating statements he made to the police citing s.7 charter right to keep quiet. The appellant was arrested in a crime scene where a passerby had been shot by a stray bullet from a club. The appellant image was captured by video security cameras. While in custody, the police read to him his rights as an arrested person. The rights include the charter right to keep quiet and also access to legal counsel. This is the standard procedure required by law.
The police investigators tried to seek more information from the appellant by advising him to revoke advice from his counsel. This made the appellant to make several incriminating admissions such as identifying himself from the security camera images obtained from the scene of crime. Mr. Singh argues that under the charter rights, the police had no authority to question him against the advice of his counsel. He thus argues that the evidence he provided was void and was as a result of pressure from the police. It is thus the responsibility of the Supreme Court to establish the facts and reveal the admissibility of the evidence.
A revocation of the evidence would directly lead to a re-trial of the appellant. In the trial, the judge refers to the charter arguing that the police gave the appellant enough information about his rights and that he did not have to answer any questions. However, the judges ruled that police work heavily relies on the information given by arrested persons who speak with enough knowledge about their rights and without coercion. Therefore, as far as there was no proof of violation or coercion, the judge admitted the evidence derived from statements made by Mr. Singh.
According to the trial judge, there were sufficient reasons to admit such evidence to the case. This was because the statements were voluntary and the police had not denied the accused an active mind. As such, it was rampant to define the boundary between confessions and right to keep quiet. The judge ruled that after his rights were made clear, the accused was at liberty not to disclose anything. Consequently, it is police obligation to obtain as much information as possible from suspects in their endeavors to maintain law and order. The backbone of the case lies on the admissibility of evidence collected by police from the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court represents the highest courts in Canada CITATION CHR03 \l 1033 (MOORE, 1997-2003). It is the mandate of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution and reveal violations CITATION CHR03 \l 1033 (MOORE, 1997-2003). In this case, the Supreme Court is making an interpretation of the charter right to silence. Though the court was divided between concurring and dissenting opinions, it is its mandate, as a final resort to interpret the charter to remain silent. The appellant’s prayer to the Supreme Court focuses on the evidence collected by police.
His prayers to the Supreme Court are that the police should inform the suspects, in the language they understand, their right to keep quiet and anything spoken could be used in a court of ruling. Further, the police should not press on with interrogations once the suspect has shown interest in remaining silent and only maintain communication with his or her counsel. The appellant argued that police interrogators usually confuse the suspects with statements that are not clear that might lead to self-incrimination. Consequently, suspects may leave crucial information or distort the exact versions to try to vindicate themselves which in turn leave the police with biased information.
This information, he argued, should not be relied on as proof in the courts. Findings The case was based on the conflict between voluntariness and the confessions of arrested persons and whether the information collected through police interrogation of suspects was admissible as evidence in court of law. The judge at the trial felt that Mr. Singh statements were voluntary since it was on record that the police had communicated several times on his right to keep quiet. It was upon himself to keep quiet and not to give in to the police tricks to gather more information. The trial judge thus convicted the appellant based on the evidence.
However, the issue of right to remain silent became contentious. Thus, an interpretation of the appellate and the Supreme Court was necessary. Mr. Singh arguments were interpreted and responded to by the court of appeal as follows; there was sufficient evidence prove that the information that the appellant gave the police was voluntary. This is because the police and the plaintiff were aware of all these rights in the charter. A according to the court of appeal, the proposition of the appellant could not be supported since it was inconsistent with authority.
It followed that police are permitted to use reasonable persuasion to gather information from the accused. Mr. Singh had to concede loss of his appeal. The last option was the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that s. 7 charter guarantees every citizen of his or her rights are protected as enshrined in the constitution, however, indirect statements that do not coerce a person to forego their right is not a violation CITATION CHR03 \l 1033 (MOORE, 1997-2003). The Supreme Court judges argued that as far as the police used ‘persuasion’ as their means to gather information, their cause was justified.
Moreover, records indicated that the plaintiff had been given sufficient information about his right to remain silent, thus, speaking was a violation of his own right. This implies that the information was voluntary and thus was warranted to be used as evidence. The judges argued that the tying police investigation that touch on s. 7 charter factors in both state interest and other individual’s freedoms. The state is obliged to protect its citizens by enforcing law and order. This should be done at all levels. Thus balancing between the rights of the accused and the society is rampant.
The conclusion was that the police have a right to use persuasion and make the suspects give information. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep quiet is only limited to the suspects and not the police officers. In this regard, the police are justified to ask their questions and incase the suspect answers, it would be regarded as voluntary statements. While citing the case R v G(C)CITATION Joh04 \l 1033 (Reid & Buckley, 2004), the court ruled that it is the obligation of the suspect to protect his right to keep quiet if he or she has a sound and operating mind. This applied to the case of Mr. Singh.
The judges further ruled that even though the crown was to concede that the statements were made out of coercion, the Crown would not possibly prove beyond doubt that the admissions were involuntary. The court further claimed that the confessions rule and the right to silence are functionally equivalent. The court also asserted that not all statements made involuntarily are false. Thus the conviction was upheld with the charter held constant. The case was dismissed as its facets were inadmissible in the Supreme Court.
Discussion and analysis of the case
The conclusion of the courts was merited. The reasons given were sufficient to prove that the rights of a person are dependent on many other forces that define its applicability and the extent through which is can be applied. According to this case, Mr. Singh is solely concerned about the police extracting information from him and using it as evidence in the court of law. This is a conflict between justice to the society and personal freedoms and rights. The courts proved that the plaintiff was involved in crime thus it is in interest of justice that he be punished; however the impediment of personal rights under s.7 charter hinders adequate availability of information.
It is realistic to argue that the police are warranted by natural reasons to violate some rights to some extent when protecting the interest of the majority. As stated in the Supreme Court judgment, it is important to maintain the delicate balance between individual and community interest. People who are assumed to be a threat to the community ought to give information to the authorities through all means possible. From the proceedings at the trial, it is seen that the convict was among a gang that shot and killed an innocent civilian.
In order to protect civilians, it is important that the arrested persons give information, not necessarily self-incriminating. Thus police interrogations are ...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Other Topics:

  • The Various Elements of Negligence
    Description: The elements of negligence are the duty of care owed by the offender, the non-compliance to that duty by the offender, the causation of injuries by the offender due to the prior breach of duty and the financial losses due to the act of negligence by the offender. Alan cannot be sued for negligence due to ...
    1 page/≈275 words| APA | Law | Essay |
  • Introduction to Homeland Security
    Description: The task required a detailed explanation of laws that facilitated the setting up of the homeland security department in the USA....
    3 pages/≈825 words| APA | Law | Essay |
  • Failures in Criminal Justice
    Description: Some of the issues that leads to investigative failures include; cognitive biasness, heuristic biasness, organizational traps, group think, probability errors...
    1 page/≈275 words| APA | Law | Essay |
Need a Custom Essay Written?
First time 15% Discount!