- Friday Roundup: Bad Lawyering, Police Misconduct and a Look at Police Interrogations September 3, 2010Last week, a federal judge overturned a Texas death row inmate's murder conviction, citing ineffective assistance of trial counsel and error by the trial court.The Indianapolis Star reported on Tuesday that 27 Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers have been arrested, investigated, demoted, reassigned or disciplined in the past two years, […]
- Book Review: Social Media for Lawyers (The Next Frontier) September 4, 2010Now this took guts. When my two dear friends, Carolyn Elefant and Niki Black asked me to review their new book, Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, published by the ABA Law Practice Management Section , they knew they were taking a huge risk. I've not always been kind toward the promotion of social media. In fact, on occasion, I've been r […]
- The Federal Government Settles AbitibiBowater’s NAFTA Claim August 27, 2010This week, the federal government announced a settlement of a claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement, Can T.S. 1994 No. 2 (“NAFTA”) by AbitibiBowater Inc. (“Abitibi”) against Canada as a result of the dispute between the company and Newfoundland. In 2008, the Newfoundland government hastily expropriated nearly all of Abitibi’s Newfoundland asset […]
September 13th, 2008 | 
Author: The right to silence is protected under the Charter. The accused may not be compelled as a witness against himself in criminal proceedings, and therefore only voluntary statements made to police are admissible as evidence.
Prior to an accused being informed of their right to legal counsel, any statements they make to police are considered involuntarily compelled and are inadmissible as evidence. After being informed of the right to counsel, the accused may choose to voluntarily answer questions and those statements would be admissible.
As far as pre-trial silence is concerned, a person who is subject to the coercive power of the state has a right to refuse to answer questions; this happens on the person’s arrest, charge or detention. This right to silence has been recognised as a principle of fundamental justice, protected by s 7 of the Charter: see R v Hebert [1990] 2 SCR 151. It is also accepted that the exercise of the right to silence can not be used against the accused at trial: see R v Chambers [1990] 2 SCR 1293.
Although an accused has the right to remain silent and may not be compelled to testify against himself, where an accused freely chooses to take the witness stand and testify, there is no further right to silence and no general restriction on what kinds of questions they may be required to answer.
This may be contrasted with the US right to refuse to answer incriminating questions under the 5th Amendment even while on the witness stand. However section 13 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that a witness may not have any incriminating evidence they gave as testimony used against them in separate proceedings. In effect, a person can be compelled to give involuntary self-incriminating evidence but only where that evidence is to be used against a third party.
In most cases, except for certain sex offences or where the victims are children, spouses can not be compelled to testify against each other. This right does not include lying to persons in authority but the right to refuse to answer any and all questions.
Posted in 
Tags: