Comprehending Canadian police cautions: are the rights to silence and legal counsel understandable?

Abstract

Comprehension of a Canadian police right to silence caution and a right to legal counsel caution was examined. Each caution was first presented verbally in its entirety, followed by its sentence-by-sentence presentation in written format. Participants (N = 56) were asked to indicate, after each presentation, their understanding of the caution. When delivered in verbal format, 4 and 7% of participants fully understood the right to silence and legal counsel cautions, respectively. However, 48 and 32% of participants fully understood the right to silence and legal counsel cautions, respectively, when delivered in written format. Comprehension of the cautions was not influenced by gender, experience with the caution, or whether the caution was interpreted by a police recruit or regular student. The implications of the results for statement admissibility and protection of suspects' rights are discussed.

A Descriptive Analysis of How Canadian Police Officers Administer the Right-to-Silence and Right-to-Legal-Counsel Cautions

“…It is imperative that interviewees understand the legal rights contained in those cautions so that their rights are protected and the police are able to ensure the admissibility of statements (Marin 2004;Whittemore and Ogloff 1994). Unfortunately, experimental studies in various countries, such as Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, have demonstrated that it is rare for people to understand fully the rights contained in police cautions (e.g., Cooke and Philip 1998;Eastwood and Snook 2009;Fenner, Gudjonsson, and Clare 2002;Grisso 1981). Such studies have typically presented the cautions in an ideal manner under highly controlled conditions.…”

Awareness and comprehension of the right to silence in Queensland, Australia

“…In a related investigation, Eastwood and Snook (2010) examined Canadian undergraduate students' understanding of the right to silence caution, and the right to legal representation caution. They found that when the cautions were presented verbally in full, only 4% of participants fully understood the right to silence caution, while only 7% fully understood the right to legal representation caution.…”

Confession evidence in Canada: psychological issues and legal landscapes

“…see Eastwood & Snook, 2010). Once the suspect is under arrest, however, the warning typically takes this form: 'You are under arrest for the charge of ___.…”

“…What is less clear is if suspects exercise these rights. Eastwood and Snook (2010) have demonstrated that University students in Newfoundland (half of whom were enrolled in a police recruit program) understood their right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel but had difficulty understanding that they had little to gain of 'hope from any promise or favor' or 'fear from any threat'.…”

“…Anything you say can be used in court as evidence ' (R. v. Hebert, 1990). Many cautions also include a statement such as: 'You have nothing to hope from any promise or favor, and nothing to fear from any threat, whether or not you say anything' (Eastwood & Snook, 2010).…”