During a dangerous driving causing death investigation, Mr. Dunford gave a warned statement. Both at trial and on appeal his counsel argued that the statement should not be admissible due to the fact that the officer should have recognized that Mr. Dunford did not understand his right to counsel and warnings. That argument was rejected. The case is a good example of the importance of officers recording suspects’ responses to questions about whether they understand their rights to counsel and whether they want to call a lawyer:
The police do not have an obligation to respond to a detainee’s misunderstanding of his rights or how to implement them if that misunderstanding is not communicated to the police or if there are no other indicators suggestive of a lack of comprehension. These indicators viewed objectively must signal confusion or misunderstanding. R. v. Dunford, 2017 SKCA 1. The trial judgment is found at R. v. Dunford, 2015 SKQB 322 and the sentencing decision is found at R. v. Dunford, 2015 SKQB 386.