son ▁from ▁answering ▁and ▁ins isted ▁that ▁she ▁get ▁a ▁lawyer . ▁Nevertheless , ▁Clark son ▁made ▁several ▁inc rimin ating ▁statements . ▁ ▁At ▁trial , ▁the ▁court ▁found ▁that ▁the ▁statements ▁were ▁made ▁in ▁viol ation ▁of ▁section ▁ 1 0 ( b ) ▁and ▁ex cluded ▁under ▁section ▁ 2 4 ( 2 ) ▁of ▁the ▁Char ter . ▁On ▁appeal ▁the ▁decision ▁was ▁over turn ed ▁and ▁Clark son ▁was ▁conv icted . ▁▁ ▁The ▁issue ▁before ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁was ▁whether ▁the ▁police ▁viol ated ▁her ▁rights ▁under ▁section ▁ 1 0 ( b ) ▁and ▁if ▁so ▁whether ▁the ▁statements ▁should ▁be ▁ex cluded ▁under ▁section ▁ 2 4 ( 2 ). ▁ ▁Op in ion ▁of ▁the ▁Court ▁Justice ▁Wilson , ▁writing ▁for ▁the ▁majority , ▁held ▁that ▁the ▁trial ▁judge ▁was ▁correct ▁and ▁that ▁Clark son ▁should ▁be ▁acqu itted . ▁▁ ▁Wilson ▁noted ▁that ▁in ▁order ▁for ▁a ▁w ai ver ▁of ▁right ▁to ▁coun sel ▁to ▁be ▁valid ▁it ▁" must ▁be ▁prem ised ▁on ▁a ▁true ▁appreci ation ▁of ▁the ▁consequences ▁of ▁giving ▁up ▁that ▁right ." ▁She ▁identified ▁the ▁purpose ▁of ▁the ▁right ▁is ▁to ▁ensure ▁that ▁the ▁accused ▁will ▁be ▁treated ▁fairly . ▁ ▁She ▁proposed ▁that ▁an ▁accused ▁must ▁satisfy ▁an ▁" aw aren ess ▁of ▁the ▁consequences ▁test " ▁to ▁properly ▁wa ive ▁their ▁rights . ▁On ▁the ▁facts , ▁there ▁was ▁evidence ▁that ▁due ▁to ▁her ▁into xic ation ▁Clark son ▁was ▁not ▁entirely ▁aware ▁of ▁the