Failure To Contact Interpreter Critical In Decision To Set Aside Over 80 Conviction

In the recent case of R. v. John, a summary conviction appeal court set aside a conviction for Over 80 as a result of the police not contacting an interpreter when they should have done so.

In this case the first language of the accused was Tamil.  He was arrested and advised of his rights including his section 10 (b) Charter right to counsel.  According to the trial judge's findings, the police noticed the ethnicity of the accused and that he had an accent. Despite being aware of these facts, the police did not ask if he needed an interpreter.

The accused exercised his right to counsel and the police put him in contact with duty counsel on four occasions and the accused spoke with English speaking duty counsel on three of those calls.  After his last conversation with duty counsel, the accused told the arresting officer that he did not understand duty counsel.  Rather than request an interpreter, the arresting officer assumed the accused understood English and took