In R. v. Burlingham, [1995] S.C.J. No. 39 the Supreme Court of Canada held that the right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter places constitutional limits on police interrogations by prohibiting conduct that undermines a suspect's confidence in the solicitor-client relationship. As stated by Iacobucci, J., speaking for a majority of the Court, at para. 4:

The police … constantly denigrated the integrity of defence counsel; the interrogation record attests to repeated disparaging comments made about defence counsel's loyalty, commitment, availability, as well as the amount of his legal fees. The interrogation officers suggested they were more trustworthy than the appellant's lawyer…

At para. 14, Iacobucci, J., goes on to say:

…s. 10(b) specifically prohibits the police, as they did in this case, from belittling an accused's lawyer with the express goal or effect of undermining the accused's confidence in and relationship with defence counsel. It makes no sense for s. 10(b) of the Charter to provide for the right to retain and instruct counsel if law enforcement authorities are able to undermine either an accused's confidence in his or her lawyer or the solicitor-client relationship.

< Back