Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/R._v._Bartle> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 30 of
30
with 100 items per page.
- R._v._Bartle abstract "R. v. Bartle, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173 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 a police officer is required to hold off on their investigation upon arresting an individual until they have been informed of their rights and given sufficient information and access to contact a private lawyer or duty counsel. The case applied the earlier Supreme Court of Canada case, R. v. Brydges. The judgment was released with three other decisions: R. v. Pozniak, R. v. Harper, R. v. Matheson, and R. v. Prosper.".
- R._v._Bartle wikiPageID "4462256".
- R._v._Bartle wikiPageRevisionID "549975961".
- R._v._Bartle caseName "R. v. Bartle".
- R._v._Bartle citations "[1994] 3 S.C.R. 173".
- R._v._Bartle concurrence "La Forest J.".
- R._v._Bartle concurrence "McLachlin J.".
- R._v._Bartle decidedDate "1994-09-29".
- R._v._Bartle dissent "Gonthier J.".
- R._v._Bartle dissent "L'Heureux‑Dubé J.".
- R._v._Bartle docket "23623".
- R._v._Bartle fullCaseName "Kenneth Bartle v. Her Majesty the Queen".
- R._v._Bartle hasPhotoCollection R._v._Bartle.
- R._v._Bartle heardDate "--03-02".
- R._v._Bartle history "Judgment for the Crown in the Court of Appeal for Ontario".
- R._v._Bartle joinmajority "Sopinka, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ.".
- R._v._Bartle majority "Lamer C.J.".
- R._v._Bartle ratio "Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms places three duties on the police in relation to rights to counsel: The duty to inform a detainee of their rights to counsel, The duty to provide a detainee with a reasonable opportunity to exercise their right, and The duty to hold of questioning until a detainee until that reasonable opportunity has been exercised. The first duty includes advising a detainee of the availablity of duty counsel. A detainee must fully understand their rights before they can be waived.".
- R._v._Bartle ruling "Appeal allowed".
- R._v._Bartle scc "1992".
- R._v._Bartle subject Category:1994_in_Canadian_case_law.
- R._v._Bartle subject Category:Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms_case_law.
- R._v._Bartle subject Category:Supreme_Court_of_Canada_cases.
- R._v._Bartle comment "R. v. Bartle, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173 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 a police officer is required to hold off on their investigation upon arresting an individual until they have been informed of their rights and given sufficient information and access to contact a private lawyer or duty counsel.".
- R._v._Bartle label "R. v. Bartle".
- R._v._Bartle sameAs m.0c3s6f.
- R._v._Bartle sameAs Q7274176.
- R._v._Bartle sameAs Q7274176.
- R._v._Bartle wasDerivedFrom R._v._Bartle?oldid=549975961.
- R._v._Bartle isPrimaryTopicOf R._v._Bartle.