Clarkson v R
Supreme Court of Canada case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Clarkson v R?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Clarkson v R, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to retain and instruct counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that in order for an accused to waive their right to retain and instruct counsel, they must be clear and unequivocal, and the accused must be aware of the consequences of the waiver.
Quick Facts Clarkson v R, Hearing: May 16, 1985 Judgment: April 24, 1986 ...
Clarkson v R | |
---|---|
Hearing: May 16, 1985 Judgment: April 24, 1986 | |
Full case name | Lana Louise Clarkson v. Her Majesty The Queen |
Citations | [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383 |
Ruling | Clarkson's appeal was allowed. |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice: Brian Dickson Puisne Justices: Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Julien Chouinard, Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gerald Le Dain, Gérard La Forest | |
Reasons given | |
Majority | Wilson J. (paras. 1-25), joined by Estey, Lamer, Le Dain and La Forest JJ. |
Concurrence | McIntyre J. (paras. 25-29), joined by Chouinard J. |
Dickson C.J. and Beetz J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; Korponay v. Attorney General of Canada, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 41 |
Close