A Quebec Court judge had determined the man’s rights were violated under five different sections of the Charter of Right and Freedoms.
In a decision released Monday, the Quebec Court of Appeal has ordered that a Montreal resident undergo a new trial in a case where a stay of proceedings was placed on a sexual assault charge he faced.
Two years ago, a Quebec Court judge determined the man’s rights were violated under five different sections of the Charter of Right and Freedoms.
The unanimous decision delivered Monday was made by a panel of three Quebec Court of Appeal judges and the explanation behind it was written by Justice Patrick Healy.
On April 6, 2022, Quebec Court Judge Érick Vanchestein ruled the Montreal police violated the rights of Rui Pedro Ribeiro, 37, under five sections of the Charter. The judge placed a stay of proceedings on the sole count of sexual assault that Ribeiro faced. That meant the case could not proceed unless the Crown brought forward new evidence within a year.
The appellate court determined Vanchestein erred in his decision to order the stay of proceedings, including a decision to find the police violated Ribeiro’s rights in ways that Ribeiro was not even challenging.
On Jan. 15, 2020, two Montreal police investigators were assigned to investigate a sexual assault alleged to have taken place the previous summer. A warrant for Ribeiro’s arrest was issued Oct. 20, 2020. More than a month later, on Nov. 26, 2020, Ribeiro was informed of the warrant and arranged to meet with the investigators on Dec. 2, 2020.
One of the investigators advised Ribeiro to consult a lawyer, which he did. When he met with the investigators, he was placed under arrest and was questioned. During the interrogation, he referred to his right to remain silent 39 times. The interrogation began at 4 p.m. and came to an end at 7:40 p.m. when Ribeiro was released.
He filed a motion arguing that his right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned was violated as well as his right to remain silent. Vanchestein found that the police also violated his rights under three subsections of another part of the Charter: to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
“I conclude that the judge erred in pronouncing a stay. I also conclude there were no violations of (four of the five parts of the Charter referred to by the judge),” Healy wrote, adding the accused’s right to remain silent was not properly dealt with.
“The question concerning the alleged breach of the right to silence cannot be resolved entirely on this appeal. It remains to be determined specifically whether there was a breach and whether that issue should be addressed under the Charter or the confessions rule (under common law),” Healy wrote. “It remains to be determined in this case whether the combined effect of continued detention and disregard for assertions of the right to silence raises a reasonable doubt, if not proof, that (Ribeiro) was deprived the full exercise of free choice to answer questions or make a statement. If it does, any statement obtained in the interview of Dec. 2, 2020, might be inadmissible under the Charter or the confessions rule at common law. But those issues were not litigated on the motion for a stay.”
The judge noted that, if a new trial proceeds, the issue of whether Ribero’s statements are admissible as evidence could be debated before the trial judge.