We have added two new columns about Canadian legal decisions to the Reid Institute Members page. Here are the initial paragraphs for each column:

The Quality of Lawyer Consultation: What constitutes enough legal advice?

Part 1: R. v. Osmond (2007) BCCA by Gino Arcaro M.Ed., B.Sc.

I. Overview

This is the first part of a research series that reviews complex, contradicting right to counsel procedures centered on the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Osmond (2007). This paper includes a brief version of the actual case. The complete version of the Osmond decision will be explained in Part 2. Although the Osmond decision is binding only in British Columbia, it is persuasive in other provinces.

The 5 key points of the case are:

• A 13 year-old girl was beaten to death.
• DNA evidence linked the accused to the crime scene.
• The accused was arrested and informed of his right to counsel. Legal Aid was contacted and a Legal Aid lawyer gave him advice in less than 5 minutes.
• The accused confessed.
• The BCCA excluded the confession because: the Legal Aid advice was insufficient, constituting a sec. 10(b) Charter violation

The Osmond decision relates to a continuum of cases explained in this article.

The Quality of Lawyer Consultation: What constitutes enough legal advice?

Part 2: R. v. Osmond (2007) BCCA[1] (the long version) by Gino Arcaro M.Ed., B.Sc.

I. The short version

Part 1 explained, briefly, the circumstances surrounding R. v. Osmond and explained how the decision fits within a continuum of cases.

Part 2 reviews in depth, the complex, contradicting right-to-counsel procedures centered on the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision. The complete decision is included for the purpose of forming a point-of-reference regarding the issue of quality of lawyer consultation. Following the conclusion, a lengthy case law review, taken directly from the B.C.C.A. decision, is included. This supplementary material is provided for the benefit of the student, teacher or police officer, to assist in understanding the Court's contradictory rulings.