you're right I would feel differently, but that doesn't change the fact that the police violated this guy and he deserved to walk.

That is where you are wrong. The question IS if they have the right guy. They thought it was his car yes, but they couldn't prove he was driving it without his confession which they got by telling him his lawyer was crap and that they knew the judge and would ensure he got a light sentence if he confessed. SO they may or may not have the right guy, and if they did, they should've been able to find other evidence to prove it.

yeah if I shot 100 people.....no no no even better CHILDREN..... I would deserve to go to jail, but if the only evidence was my gun had been fired and a coerced confession which got tossed then yeah all would be good cause I would be walking.

Hmmm so I suppose the cops are out there looking for the guy who DID do it, or they know it was him but since the cops screwed up it's all over.

Unless the Crown can get the ruling overturned on appeal, the interrogation is out. The Crown would then need to find a new way of proving that he was behind the wheel.

What a sick system we have, he should never been driving in the first place to even come into question, I guess they better start looking for the person who did it then.

If the law allowed for a permanent license revocation, that applied Canada wide, upon a single conviction of drunk driving, then he MIGHT not have been behind the wheel. But that’s not the law and even if it was changed, it doesn’t prevent unlicensed people from driving. If the lack of a license kept people from using items that required one, criminals wouldn’t have guns.

Everyone knows he was behind the wheel, but the only evidence that the Crown has that proved it was obtained incorrectly. I’d rather see a guilty person go free than allow the police to violate Charter rights to further an investigation or the courts to operate in a fashion that forces someone to prove their innocence rather than the Crown prove guilt

I know that, if I wrote the laws he wouldn't have hade the chance to drive, no drunks would.... Strike one, no license, strike two, there is no strike three

So everyone knows it was him, and knowing he is guilty but because the cops messed up, he is free to do it again and you say you'd rather him go free!! Wow. When he kills again what will you say? When it's your family member you will never get back ever, but the law courts let him go, what will you say? That's the law? He is guilty but let go and kills again, yeah that's sensible.

You seem to be only capable of making decisions based on your emotions. It makes no difference on if it was one of our family members or not. History has shown time and again that we are better off letting guilty people walk than it is to give the government or the police cart Blanche.

Or do you want to live in Nazi Germany? If you don't support peoples charter rights then you must be a Nazi.

See how ridiculous arguments like that are? Of course you aren't a Nazi. Just like no one in this thread is fist bumping each other over another person's death. They do however have the ability to think logically and look at the big picture which is a skill you need to work on.

I look forward to your rebuttal. I'm betting it has something to do with a member of my family or some absurd hypothetical.

But we don't actually "know" it was him. All we know is that his charter rights were violated during the interrogation. We have a process to be followed, and it isn't perfect, but I think it's better than a police state where guilty/innocent is decided by people who "know". If the case is so easy to make against him the police should be able to do so while acting within the law.

BTW it sure looks like he should be in jail to me, but that's not what matters, and it shouldn't.

Nope you are totally right, the logical thing to do it to forget all about it, till the next time. Letting guilty people walk is better, now that is logical......

You came around faster than I thought you would. Unless that was sarcasam. Was that sarcasm?

No one said to forget about it. No one is saying it doesn't matter. All that is being said is that the guy deserves to walk as his rights were violated andthey have no other evidence other than the interrogation to go on. Do you know something the rest of us don't?

This is the other side of the sword of our justice system. The fact that you are innocent until proven guilty and that there are sanctions and restrictions on how cops get that confession is what makes Canada a place worth living. However as we see here it cuts both ways. I wish this man where jailed for life and I feel for her family. The loss they have can't be replaced and I respect their good natured ness to take the highroad. I do not know if I could my self. Regardless I think the judge was right and there's plenty of case law to back this up. A violation of charter rights can't be brushed aside or the whole document looses validity.

I think that the judge made the correct call but I do not think this case blew apart because the officers should have known better.

Without the confession of the accused there was no case. If the officers did not try, there was no case. It is not as if the accused would have been convicted if the officers did not continue with the interrogation. The officers could have simply turned the accused loose and there still would have been no case. The officers did attempt to make a case and continue with the interrogation. The crown chose to try the case and let the judge rule if there was a charter violation or not.

If the officers would have just let the accused go without trying some would have still put this on the shoulders of the two officers.

I royally hate these threads, but for some unknown reason feel the need to chime in.

The cops didn't knowingly breach his charter of rights. A judge decided that they they did well after the fact. They belittled and made fun of the suspects lawyer in an attempt to get him to talk and guess what it worked. He talked enough that there was an expectation of a conviction. A judge later determined that making fun of lawyers is a charter breach. They didn't beat him, threaten, withhold food or bathroom breaks.

They made fun of his lawyer and from this day forward that is now a charter breach. It never was in the past, but now it is.

From my understanding of the case as per sun article, the vehicle involved was identified but the driver was not identified and claimed that he was not driving. The owner of vehicle can be charged with an offence under the traffic act but to convict of an offence under the criminal code he must be identified as the driver. They attempted to get him to confess to being the driver.

This case was stayed which means that it can go back to court if further evidence becomes available within a certain prescribed period of time. If there was evidence to identify the accused as the driver there would have been no need for a confession. If for some reason a witness come forward to identify the accused, the case may go back to court. For the most part stayed cases expire without evidence being produced.

Miranda is just a bunch of magic words that once said allow the police to continue to violate the accused rights. With Miranda the interrogation continues till the lawyer shows up to take his client. If an accused is coerced into a confession, too bad so sad but he was given his Miranda.

Both Miranda and the Charter allow the right to have a lawyer present. Any lawyer in the US or here will not allow an interrogation to continue unless he/she makes a deal.

Miranda advises the right to a lawyer and the charter requires that the officers say you have the right to retain and instruct council without delay.
There are check and balances and this case demonstrates those checks and balances and this case demonstrates those checks and balances in action that allowed the judge to rule against the confession.

I am not surprised that you find the cops at fault because the accused walked . I don't fault them in this case and think they did what they could.

Not only do we have the right to remain silent but we have the right to retain and instruct council without delay.

If the sun article was accurate, even the judge knew that the accused was the guy but without the evidence that he ruled violated the accused rights he could not convict. It is interesting to note that the victim's family did not blame the cop and even had encouraging words of praise for them.

This ^^^^^^^^^

Feelings or Facts?
 

My heading says all I have to say

Oh, 1 thing ... IF you ever have to go to court , may you be judged according to facts , not feelings

Yes, you get to talk to a lawyer - on the phone. The lawyer is likely going to tell you to remain silent, and stay silent. But wouldn't it be nice if we could have a lawyer present during custodial interrogation - if you get arrested today, and end up spending hours being interrogated - you do not have the right to have an attorney present during that interrogation. The Charter doesn't provide for that, it's just you and the cops.
This has been through the supreme court.

Simply not true!

That said if a lawyer sits in on an interrogation he/she will probably not let his client answer a single question and for practical purposes the interrogation or interview is over.

For those who pine away for an American style justice and Miranda they should know that the charter provides for more rights. The Miranda is called a warning and once read it does nothing to prevent the interrogation from continuing and quite often the interrogation ramps up until the lawyer arrives and shuts it down. If for some reason the client blabs his guts out prior to the arrival of the lawyer and against the lawyers wishes the confession will probably stand justified by reason that Miranda was read and accused is at fault for not heading the warning.

In Canada the judge will decide if the confession stands or does not stand on the criteria of was the confession voluntary and did the accused know he/she had the right to not say anything.

If for some reason I found myself in custody for something I did or did not do, I would rather be in Canada than any place other.