What are the implications of a police interview where the accused was questioned before the accused had a chance to telephone his lawyer?

While this was a case dealing with the commencement of questioning before the accused had been given an opportunity to telephone his lawyer, also at issue was the admissibility of the statement made as a result of the questioning. The comments on p. 17 might well be applied to the somewhat different facts of the present case. That page stated [at p. 202 C.C.C., pp. 550-1 D.L.R.]: The breach of the appellant's rights can only be described as wilful and deliberate. It was more than a mere blunder or technical transgression. Having carefully read the appellant his rights twice and heard him express his desire to exercise those rights, the police immediately proceeded to question him as if the reading and the exercise had never taken place. This conduct went beyond being "unfortunate, distasteful or inappropriate": Rothman v. The Queen, 1981 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640 at p. 696, 59 C.C.C. (2d) 30 at p. 74, 121 D.L.R. (3d) 578 at p. 621. There was no quality of inadvertence or ignorance to the timing of the questions nor their content. As already stated, there was no suggestion of an emergency situation or urgency pressed upon us as justification for the asking of the questions and, in particular, for the form of the question which presumed the guilt of the appellant.