broken legs but remained conscious and aware of the circumstances. He was then informed of his rights upon arrest, which are, according to Section 10a and 10b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Arrest or Detention- everyone has the right on arrest or detention
a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
b) to retain and instruct legal council without delay and to be informed of that right; and
c) to have the validity of the detention determined by was of habeas corpus and to be released in the detention is not lawful (Government of Canada, 2000, pp. 646).
The police exercised their powers by arresting without a warrant. In this case, it was used because the constables believed, on reasonable grounds, that an indictable offense had been committed.
Griffiths and Verdun-Jones (1994, pp.107, 108) states that " a police officer may arrest without a warrant any individual:
a) who has committed an indictable offense or who the officer believes, on reasonable grounds, has committed or is about to commit an indictable offense; or
b) whom the officer finds actually committing any criminal offense (whether it be an indictable or summary conviction offense); or
c) for whom the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant of arrest or committal is in force within the jurisdiction where he is found."
If the arresting officer had not informed Mr. G of his rights, his case may not have stood in court. A similar case example to this would be Regina V Therens where the accused lost control of his car and hit a tree. Therens supplied samples of his breath, however, the arresting officer never informed him of his right to retain and instruct legal council. As a result of this, the charge of driving while impaired was dismissed because Therens' rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to retain council had been violated by the police (Griffiths and Verdun-Jones, 1994)
Up...