R. v. Taylor

Listen to Podcast
Case Brief
Facts

The accused, Jamie Kenneth Taylor, was arrested for impaired driving causing bodily harm. He was informed of his Charter rights, including his right to counsel, and requested to speak to his father and lawyer. At the scene and later at the hospital, police did not facilitate his access to counsel. Blood samples were taken at the hospital, both by hospital staff and later by police. The trial judge admitted the first set of blood samples, leading to Taylor's conviction. The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, finding a breach of s. 10(b) of the Charter.

Issues

1. Did the police breach the accused's s. 10(b) right to retain and instruct counsel without delay by failing to facilitate access to counsel at the scene of the accident and the hospital? 2. If so, should the blood evidence be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter?

Legal Analysis

Section 10(b) of the Charter guarantees the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay upon arrest or detention. This right includes a police duty to facilitate access to counsel upon request. The Court found that the police had a constitutional obligation to facilitate access at the first reasonably available opportunity. While not obligated to provide their own phone, police must take proactive steps to provide phone access. The Court rejected the trial judge's assumption that medical treatment precluded access to counsel, emphasizing that a hospital setting does not create a 'Charter-free zone'. The Crown bears the burden of proving that any delay was reasonable. In this case, the police's complete failure to even attempt to facilitate access to counsel, despite ample opportunity at the hospital, constituted a serious breach of s. 10(b). This breach warranted the exclusion of the evidence.

Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. It held that the police's failure to facilitate the accused's access to counsel at the hospital was a violation of his s. 10(b) Charter rights. The Court ordered the exclusion of the blood evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, upholding the Court of Appeal's decision to set aside the conviction and enter an acquittal.

Transcript
Welcome back to Casepod, everyone! Today we're diving into *R v Taylor*, a fascinating case that really clarifies the crucial right to counsel. This case hinges on impaired driving causing bodily harm, but the real meat is in the Charter rights violation. Mr. Taylor was arrested, rightfully informed of his rights, including the right to counsel, and asked to contact his lawyer and father. But here's where things go south. The police, both at the scene and later at the hospital, completely dropped the ball. They didn't help him get in touch with his lawyer. Blood samples were taken – once by hospital staff, and then again by the police. The big legal questions? Did the police violate Mr. Taylor's section 10(b) right to counsel without delay? And if they did, should that illegally obtained blood evidence be thrown out under section 24(2) of the Charter? Section 10(b) is all about ensuring a fair trial. It's not just about knowing your rights; it's about having a *reasonable opportunity* to exercise them. This means the police have a duty to help you contact a lawyer when you ask. The courts have made it clear: this isn't some abstract right. It means proactive steps, not just a shrug. Providing a phone isn't always required, but actively facilitating access is. Crucially, the court rejected the idea that a hospital somehow creates a "Charter-free zone." Medical treatment doesn't suspend your constitutional rights. The Crown has to prove any delay in accessing counsel was reasonable. In Taylor's case, the police didn't even *try* to help him contact his lawyer. That’s a pretty serious breach of section 10(b). And because of that significant failure, the evidence – the blood samples – was inadmissible. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal. The police's inaction was a clear violation of Mr. Taylor's rights, and the improperly obtained evidence had to be excluded. The conviction was overturned, and an acquittal entered. This case serves as a powerful reminder: the right to counsel isn't just a formality; it's a fundamental cornerstone of our justice system, and the police have a clear obligation to uphold it. So, there you have it, a clear-cut example of how a failure to facilitate access to counsel can have significant consequences. That's all for this episode of Casepod, join us next time!