Case Study

R v Manninen

[1983], 43. O.R. Ontario Court of Appeal

Facts:

Charles Manninen was arrested by two police officers for armed robbery and other offences and read his rights. He was told why he was under arrest and that he had a right to speak to a lawyer. He also was cautioned that he did not have to say anything, but if he did, the statement could be used in evidence. The accused then stated: "Prove it. I ain't saying anything until I see my lawyer. I want to see my lawyer." The following discussion then took place between the accused and a police officer:

POLICE: What is your full name? ACCUSED: Ronald Charles Manninen. POLICE: What is your address? ACCUSED: Ain't got one.

POLICE: Where is the knife that you had, along with this [showing him the C02 gun found in the car] when you ripped off the Mac's Milk on Wilson Avenue?

ACCUSED: That’s bulls___t! When I was in the store, I only had the gun. The knife was in the tool-box in the car.

The last answer of the accused was the basis of his conviction at his trial. The accused appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Issue:

Should the accused's statement have been excluded from evidence on the grounds that his rights under section 10(b) – the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right – of the Charter had been violated?

Held: Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed[1].

Judicial Reasoning:

The police should not have questioned the accused after he expressed a desire to speak to his lawyer and the intent to say nothing until he did so. While the first two questions were "innocuous[2]," the third was in a "completely different category."

The last question was based on a presumption of guilt, and the answer was devastating to the defence. The presumption of innocence under section 11(d) of the Charter was certainly of no assistance to the accused at this stage. More importantly, the question was asked as if the appellant had expressed no desire to remain silent and to see his lawyer.

This conduct by the police brought the "administration of justice into disrepute", and the evidence obtained thereby should be excluded. The conduct of the police was "willful and deliberate and more than a blunder or mere technical transgression." The police's conduct "went beyond what was unfortunate, distasteful or inappropriate." It was not a question of mere inadvertence or ignorance. There was no suggestion of an emergency situation or urgency which necessitated the asking of the questions.

Questions for Further Discussion:

a.  Do you agree with the Court of Appeal's decision in this case? Why or why not?

b.  Which is more likely to bring the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of the ordinary citizen: the violation of an accused's rights or a decision permitting an obviously guilty person to escape conviction?

[1] Quashed – revoked, removed, cancelled.

[2] Innocuous – harmless, causing no harm, standard.