The Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned Daniel Marlon Noel’s conviction for drug offences. The court found that Durham Regional Police breached his Charter rights by not allowing him to promptly speak to a lawyer on the night of his arrest.
On December 21, 2015 at 10:28 p.m., Durham Regional Police entered a residence where Daniel Marlon Noel (“Noel”), his partner and his brother were living pursuant to a search warrant. All three individuals were suspected of operating a small-scale cocaine trafficking operation, which was under investigation by Durham Regional Police. That evening, Noel was arrested at gunpoint by Officer Aiello in a bedroom containing his belongings and identification. Officer Aiello did not advise Noel of his right to counsel.
Noel was taken to a central location in the house and within five minutes of the police’s entry into the residence Officer Gill read him his rights to counsel. Noel asked to speak to a lawyer, however, no efforts were made to allow for his right to counsel.
The police search of Noel’s bedroom recovered $5,670 Canadian, $71 U.S., 73 grams of cocaine, 55 grams of marijuana and a digital scale.
Noel was transported to the police station at 11:04 p.m. and arrived at the station at 11:10 p.m. Officer Gill testified that, while being led to the transport vehicle, Noel admitted ownership of the drugs and claimed that his brother was not involved.
At 12:48 p.m., Officer Capener placed two calls to duty counsel for Noel and his partner, Stacey Long, and left messages requesting a return phone call.
At 1:25 a.m., Noel learned that his brother had received a call from duty counsel. Officer Westcott left another message for duty counsel to call Noel.
At his trial, Noel alleged the following Charter breaches:
- That the entry to his home violated section 8 (right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure);
- That his arrest violated section 9 (right not to be arbitrarily detained); and
- That his right to counsel was breached which violated section 10(b) (right to retain counsel without delay).
The trial judge rejected all arguments regarding Charter violations, except that Noel’s right to counsel without delay was violated. However, Noel was denied the exclusionary remedy that he sought under the Charter, the evidence was admitted and Noel was convicted of the drug offences.
Noel appealed his conviction and argued on appeal that the trial judge erred in failing to find breaches of his Charter rights.
The appeal court concluded that there was a violation of section 10(b) of the Charter and found that the police had a “cavalier attitude about a fundamental, important, and long-settled Charter right to consult counsel without delay”. Furthermore, the police could not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.
The appeal court wrote:
Mr. Noel remained in custody without the benefit of counsel for at least three hours, unable to receive the direction, reassurance, and advice that counsel could provide. … [Noel] asked to speak to counsel promptly but that right was denied. … We conclude that it would damage the long-term interests of the administration of justice to admit the evidence and thus be seen to condone the carelessness and disorganization exhibited by the police with respect to Mr. Noel’s right to counsel without delay.
The appeal court allowed Noel’s appeal, set aside his convictions and substituted a verdict of acquittal.
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
The right to counsel is one of the most important and recognized rights provided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 10(b) of the Charter provides:
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention:
b. to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right.
The rights afforded under this section are designed to inform a detained individual of the scope of their situation and to ensure that legal advice is available.
The right to counsel consists of an informational and an implementational component. Thus, a detained individual must be informed of the right to counsel and this right must be understood by the individual (i.e. an interpreter may be required). The implementational component involves the obligations and restrictions upon the police in conducting their investigation once the right to counsel has been asserted.
The right to counsel must be provided without delay. This is often interpreted to mean immediately in order to protect the detainee from the risk of self-incrimination
Police must advise the detainee of his/her right to counsel and explain the existence and availability of legal aid and duty counsel if one cannot afford or cannot reach a lawyer. Thus, the right to counsel also has a corresponding right to retain counsel of one’s choice.
When a detainee has exercised his/her right to counsel, police must refrain from trying to elicit further evidence and refrain from questioning the individual until he/she has had an opportunity to speak with counsel.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We have a 24-hour phone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice at all times.