On December 14, 2002, Trent Sinclair was arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment in Vernon, British Columbia in relation to the murder of Gary Grice.

When asked by the police if he was satisfied with the phone call, Sinclair replied "Yeah, he's taking my case."

Sinclair eventually admitted to stabbing the victim multiple times and disposing of the body and evidence.

Sinclair told the undercover officer: "They've got me, the body, the sheets, the blood, the fibres on the carpet, the witnesses.

The trial judge found that the three statements (interview, cell, and re-enactment) were voluntary, and that Sinclair's right to counsel was satisfied when he spoke with his lawyer over the phone.

Two separate dissenting decisions were also released: one was written by Binnie J. and the other was co-written by LeBel and Fish JJ.

Justice Binnie agreed with the majority that there was no right to have counsel present during a police interview.

In his dissenting decision, Binnie J. endorsed an intermediate position where a detainee makes a request to reconsult counsel when it is reasonable in the circumstances.

's decision, as the power to decide when a detainee should be allowed to speak to their counsel should not be left in the hands of the interrogator.

The majority found that there had been no change in Sinclair's circumstances that would have justified the need for him to receive further advice from counsel.

It appeared that Sinclair fully understood his right that it was his choice whether to talk or remain silent.

Justice Binnie found that Sinclair's requests to speak to his lawyer again did not become reasonable until he had been interrogated for a number of hours and had been advised that there was "absolutely overwhelming" evidence against him.

Justices LeBel and Fish found that by not allowing Sinclair to speak to his lawyer again after multiple requests, his rights were breached, and the admission to the undercover officer and the re-enactment were tainted.

Applying the test from R v Grant, they would have excluded the statements from evidence, allow the appeal, and order a new trial...