R. v. Karnakov

[1996] O.J. No. 1822



police stop on hwy 404, brief conversation,informed him under arrest, read RTC from card, replied "Yes, lawyer.", at the station officer put on notice of a comprehension problem after she put the accused in touch with duty counsel, duty counsel told officer the accused did not appear to understand the legal advice given, officer attempted to phone a Russian-speaking lawyer, without success, officer asked him if he had understood duty counsel and he replied "Yes, I understand", breath test administered.. after initial mention of lawyer the only responses noted were "Yes" and "Yes, I understand", only one instance where able to form a simple sentence in English... accused evidence that came from Estonia 2 and one half years before, spoke little English, understood he had the right to call a lawyer, had asked to call his wife to obtain a phone number, not given an opportunity to do so, said did not fully understand what officer had told him, expert called: "high beginner" had begun efforts to speak and to understand English



accused had expressed as much as he could his desire to exercise RTC, officer understood that, put on notice by duty counsel that probably not yet been afforded an opportunity to exercise that right because of his language inability, so clear that tried to call a Russian-speaking lawyer...exclusion is warranted to deter this kind of injustice which can only bring the administration of justice into disrepute were it to become routine