R. Vs. Collins

Jumaga v. R., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 486

In the case of Jumaga v. R., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 486 the appellant (Joseph Jumaga from Manitoba) was convicted and charged with failing to provide a "reasonable excuse" to submit to the orders given by a peace officer in yielding to a breathalyzer test under s. 235(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. When the appellant was first brought to the police station the peace officer demanded that the appellant provide him with a breath sample. The demand had been repeated several times until a warning was given out to the appellant stating that if he did not provide the peace officer with the needed breath sample that there would be severe consequences. At that point, the appellant had requested to make a telephone call to his lawyer, the request was granted, however, the actual call itself was made in the attendance of the peace officer, even thought the appellant did not requested nor denied privacy. After the phone conversation (with lasted approximately 5 minutes) with his lawyer there was a reappearance in the request of a breath sample from the appellant, in which he refused.

This case starts off with on the wrong note when the peace officer failed to inform the accused to contact legal counsel. After an arrest or detention of an accused the accused must be read his/her rights to an arrest as well as be informed to retain or instruct counsel in a timely manner or their arrest/detention. When the peace officer did not take this necessary step, he violated the accused's legal rights under section 2(ii) of the Canadian Bill of Rights (1960) (cite Bill of rights). The law under the Canadian Bill of Rights states that if an accused voices that he they have a desire to contact legal aid the officer(s) must comply with their request in a reasonable manner. The law also states that the state must cease their attempts to gather evidence from the accused.

Another issue in this case took place when the peace officer failed to provide privacy when the accused made a telephone call to his legal aid. As stated within the case itself, when an accused has made a request to contact legal counsel that accused is without doubt to have that conversation in private without interruption. The peace officer should have know better than to violate another person's privacy while in custody because they are considered to be they are in a position where they can enforce the law, so they are in a more better position than any ordinary person to make that judgment call.

The appellant was charged and convicted with failing to provide a "reasonable excuse" to submit to the orders given by a peace officer in yielding to a breathalyzer test under s. 235(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada

R. v. Wolbeck

This case's issue is to determine whether or not an appeal court judge was fully entitled to overrule the original trail judge's findings that there hasn't been any breaches the appellant's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.