His case was a Canadian precedent, and created significant controversy after the Supreme Court of Canada upheld his acquittal.
He was found to have been denied access to an attorney because he was not informed of legal services available to him when he told police he could not afford a lawyer.
This case had nationwide ramifications, requiring all police officers to advise a person under arrest of the availability of legal services even if they couldn't afford them.
The Crown proceeded to introduce circumstantial evidence to the jury until the fourth day, when a voir dire was held to examine the admissibility of statements made by Brydges to the Police.
Due to this violation of the charter, the judge ruled that the admission of the evidence would put the justice system in disrepute.
The evidence was ruled inadmissible because the police had a duty to inform Brydges of legal aid services.