|
This
section has been considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Therens
(supra) and that
judgment should be borne in mind in considering the earlier decisions
of lower courts in a prison law context. Furthermore, the decisions
of the Supreme Court of Canada in Cardinal and Oswald (supra)
and Miller v R
and Morin v National Special Handling Unit Review Committee et al
should also be borne in mind, even though they involve circumstances
arising prior to the Charter but were decided after the Charter came
into effect and after the court's decision in Therens. These latter
decisions are important because they hold that the remedy of habeas
corpus is available to determine the legality of one's detention in
solitary confinement (administrative segregation) or in special handling
units. Such forms of detention are clearly recognized by the Supreme
Court of Canada as constituting a further deprivation of liberty by
the imposition of a particular form of detention distinct and separate
from that imposed on the general inmate population of a prison. Bearing
in mind the duty to act fairly and probably, s7 of the Charter principles
of fundamental justice would require one to be informed of the reasons
for such detention. Bearing in mind the entitlement to habeas corpus
to determine the legality of such forms of detention there would appear
to be no reason in principle why the right to retain and instruct counsel
without delay and to be informed of that right upon such detention should
not be applicable as well.
|