 Theren’s Case  Charter of Rights and Freedoms gave Canadian citizens a greater role in law reform  Courts could only declare a law invalid if it exceeded.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Violating The Charter II CLN4U. Charter Violations If an individual feels their rights have been violated, the onus is on the individual to prove this.

Advertisements

WHY DO LAWS CHANGE?. WHAT CONDITIONS SHOULD BE IN PLACE FOR CHANGE TO OCCUR IN AN ORDERLY FASHION?

1 CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 Some Notable Features. 2 PART I CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS  Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize.

Search and Arrest CLN4U.

EVEN THOUGH THE CHARTER IS THE HIGHEST LAW, CAN IT STILL BE CHALLENGED AND CHANGED?

The 1 st Amendment Basic Freedoms  Freedom of Speech  Freedom of Religion  Freedom of the Press  Freedom of Assembly  Right to petition the government.

BY: KATIE LOSINIECKI Miranda v. Arizona. Facts Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1966 for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old woman After being interrogated.

Miranda v. Arizona 1966 Read Miranda v. Arizona Parties Facts Issue.

Miranda v Arizona Escobedo v Illinois By Austin Lallier.

The Charter Lesson Four. Enforcement 24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to.

APPLYING THE CHARTER.   What would society be like if we were allowed to do and say anything we like?  Irony– there are mechanisms in place to ensure.

Citizen’s Rights CRIMINAL LAW – UNIT 3. Rights on being arrested  Informed of the reason  What is the charge? What are you being accused of?  Right.

U.S. Constitutional Amendments 1-10

Unit 1: What is justice? The Canadian Judicial System The Police  What is the role of police in society?  What police organisations exist in Canada?

1 st Amendment: Freedom of Expression “Congress shall make no law.

VIOLATING THE CHARTER II CLN4U. Charter Violations If an individual feels their rights have been violated, the onus is on the individual to prove this.

Rights of the Accused Search & Seizure Search & Seizure Right Against Self Incrimination Right Against Self Incrimination Right to Counsel Right to Counsel.

Civil Liberties.  It is often said in the American justice system that it is better to allow ten guilty people to go free than to let one innocent person.

Chapter 19 Section 1 Objective: To understand the relationship of civil rights and liberties to the concept of limited government.

Investigative Process 1 Investigation and trial process What is a legal arrest? What are the rights of the police and the accused? The fine line between.

Call To Order Complete the following statement: You have the right to remain silent… And take out your homework!!!

Statements and Confessions

Unit 4 Lesson 8: Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda 1966 Charged & convicted of kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges second trial, with his confession excluded.

CHARTER SECTIONS 15, 16-23, 24, 27, 32, 33. Section 15 – EQUALITY RIGHTS 1. Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the.

Chapter 5 (cont’d) 5.4 – Legal Rights and Search Laws.

PRESENTATION NAME Arrest and Detention. Arrest and Detention Arrest and Detention Depending on the amount of physical evidence collected, the police may.

Search And Seizure. R. V Collins Main Points Of Law Officers did not have a reasonable and probable grounds for believing that Collins was in possession.

I can understand that sources of law include The Constitution, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Treaties, statutes, and common law. I can understand.

Section 8 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. (unreasonable v. consent?)

Miranda V. Arizona By: Elise Kloppenburg. Facts of the Case Phoenix, Arizona 1963 Ernesto Miranda, 23 years old Arrested in his home Taken to the police.

 1.When do the Miranda warnings need to be given? 2.Describe the appellate and original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. November 20, 2015 Do Now.

Miranda: Its Meaning and Application Chapter 6 Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle.

Know Your Rights Santa Teresa High School Intro to LPSCS.

The Supreme Court Ch. 10 Sec. 3 Pp

Miranda v. Arizona.

Article III – US Constitution

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF)

Judicial Branch Famous Trials.

Defining the meaning of the terms in the warning

Aim: What are the protections offered by the case of Miranda vs

Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

CJA 225 STUDY Education for Service-- cja225study.com.

Miranda Warnings.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Korematsu V. United States

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The Federal Court System

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) The Warren Court.

Amy Bui Canadian and International Law

L.B.J. AND THE GREAT SOCIETY CHAPTER 20:3

Investigative Process 1

Unit 1: What is justice? The Canadian Judicial System

Investigative Process 1

How a case Gets to the Supreme Court

Search and Arrest CLN4U.

Fifth and Sixth Amendments

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF)

Chapter 3 How effectively does Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect your individual rights?

Case Studies Chapter 1.

Defendants’ Rights Edgenuity Lessons 3.4 and 3.5.

Citizen’s Rights CLU3ME– UNIT 3 Day Four.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Freedom of Association

Criminal Law By Ida.

Miranda v. Arizona Matthew & Noah.

Miranda vs. Arizona.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

By: Michaela Hull and Elena Butler

The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments

Presentation transcript:

 Theren’s Case  Charter of Rights and Freedoms gave Canadian citizens a greater role in law reform  Courts could only declare a law invalid if it exceeded the scope of their authority  Charter meant the court could strike down any law which infringed on rights listed in CCRF

 Idea of being informed of right to a lawyer is a misconception prior to  Only American’s had to be informed of a right to a lawyer  Media  Miranda only applied in U.S.  Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed this right for Canadians

 Case of Paul M. Therens  Night of drinking  Learned friends killed while canoeing  Drove his car home and smashed into tree  Police demanded Therens provide breath sample  Did not inform him of right to a lawyer  Went to police station and gave breath sample  Charged and later convicted with impaired driving

 Charter challenge  Lawyer argued Therens detained in police station and denied right to a lawyer  Guaranteed in s. 10 (Charter)  Supreme Court overturned conviction ruling test results wrongly obtained  Admit them would “bring administration of justice into disrepute”  Message: Supreme Court would exclude evidence if Charter Rights not respected.