Difference between revisions of "Criminal Law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1:IX)"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 135: Line 135:
It is best for an accused to say nothing to the police until after consulting a lawyer. This applies even when an accused plans to plead guilty because there may be a valid defence to the charge that the accused does not know about. For further information, see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii118/1990canlii118.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAKciB2IGhlYmVydAAAAAAB&resultIndex=1 R v Hebert]'' [1990] 2 SCR 151.
It is best for an accused to say nothing to the police until after consulting a lawyer. This applies even when an accused plans to plead guilty because there may be a valid defence to the charge that the accused does not know about. For further information, see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii118/1990canlii118.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAKciB2IGhlYmVydAAAAAAB&resultIndex=1 R v Hebert]'' [1990] 2 SCR 151.


=== 2. The modern confessions rule: ''Oickle'' ===
=== 2. The Modern Confessions Rule: ''Oickle'' ===
The modern confessions rule is outlined in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc38/2000scc38.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAKciB2IG9pY2tsZQAAAAAB&resultIndex=1 R v Oickle]'' [2000] 2 SCR 3. A confession or admission to a police officer (or other authority figure like transit police or private security officers) by an accused will not admissible if it is made under circumstances that raise a reasonable doubt as to its voluntariness. The burden of proving the voluntariness of a confession falls on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if it appears that the Crown can satisfy that burden, the accused should consider calling evidence regarding the voluntariness of the confession so as to cast doubt on the voluntariness of that confession.
The modern confessions rule is outlined in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc38/2000scc38.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAKciB2IG9pY2tsZQAAAAAB&resultIndex=1 R v Oickle]'' [2000] 2 SCR 3. A confession or admission to a police officer (or other authority figure like transit police or private security officers) by an accused will not be admissible if it is made under circumstances that raise a reasonable doubt as to its voluntariness. The burden of proving the voluntariness of a confession falls on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if it appears that the Crown can satisfy that burden, the accused should consider calling evidence regarding the voluntariness of the confession so as to cast doubt on the voluntariness of that confession.


When arguing that a confession was not voluntary, consider the following:
When arguing that a confession was not voluntary, consider the following:
Line 142: Line 142:
# '''Oppression''': this includes subjecting the accused to inhumane conditions, depriving them of food, clothing, water, sleep, medical attention, counsel, or prolonged intimidating questioning;  
# '''Oppression''': this includes subjecting the accused to inhumane conditions, depriving them of food, clothing, water, sleep, medical attention, counsel, or prolonged intimidating questioning;  
# '''Operating mind''': whether the accused knew what they were saying and that it could be used against them; and  
# '''Operating mind''': whether the accused knew what they were saying and that it could be used against them; and  
# '''Other police trickery''': police may be persistent and accusatorial but not hostile, aggressive and intimidating to the point where the community may be shocked by police actions.  
# '''Other police trickery''': police may be persistent and accusatorial but not hostile, aggressive and intimidating to the point where the community may be shocked by police actions.


=== 3. Exceptions to the general right of silence ===
=== 3. Exceptions to the general right of silence ===
5,109

edits

Navigation menu