Friday, December 21, 2012

Confession rule applies to suspects even prior to arrest or detention

[40]       When the appellant was interviewed by Sutton, he was not under arrest, nor was he detained.  His rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedomswere not triggered.  However, I agree with the appellant that when he was interviewed, he was a suspect, indeed, the target of a criminal investigation.  Therefore, the common law confessions rule, described by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Oickle, 2000 SCC 38, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3, applies.  The confessions rule requires the Crown to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a confession made by a suspect to a person in authority, such as the admission in this case, was voluntary: R. v. Oickle, at para. 30.  

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

As a former offender turned straight I can tell you that law enforcement will often use the “your not being charged with anything” or the “I’m just trying to gather facts and figure things out” line and proceed to tell you that you don’t need to call your lawyer. Then next thing you know they’re telling you your under arrest based upon what you just told them.

Next your in your lawyer’s office looking over disclosure and see that indeed the questions you answered are being used against you even though you were never read your rights. Next thing after that the crown is offering you a plea deal that seems to good to be true. At this point your so stressed out and fed-up you just want everything to end so you take the 6 months probation and 100 hour community service and move on.

When I was younger I used to think the police were your friends and there to help if needed. Now as an adult (who has had negative experiences with the law) I see that the police will lie to you , trick you and do just about anything to get you to say what they want to hear. And you know, they’re good at it!