Talk:R v Prosper

Canada: Law Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

accuracy? edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article says "The court unanimously held that the Charter does impose an obligation to ensure duty counsel is available upon arrest." That's wrong, isn't it? I don't have time to read the whole case, but the headnote seems to say that the Court unanimously held that the Charter does not impose a substantive legal obligation on the government to provide duty counsel. --Mathew5000 22:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Add topic