Month: August 2024

The leading case to be considered is R. v. Oickle1, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The court considered the application of the confessions rule as necessarily contextual in the sense that hard and fast rules will never be able to account for the variety of circumstances that could vitiate the voluntariness of a confession. The court considered the relevant factors to be included in the consideration are:
threats or promises by the police, including veiled threats or offers of inducement to the suspect
oppression
the requirement that the accused have an operating mind; and
police trickery.
Continue reading “The Confessions Rule (part 2)”

The criminal justice system is designed to prevent convictions of the innocent, and, prides itself on fairness, particularly with vulnerable detainees:
Diminished mental capacity
Young age
Under the influence of a substance

The confessions rule is an important part of preserving the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Our courts claim that they are aware of, and keen to prevent, false, unreliable, or coerced confessions.
Many times, in our legal history our courts have learned that an earlier confession was later revealed to be the result of abuse by persons in authority to persons detained.

These concerns for fairness and reliability have resulted in “the confessions rule.” The rule seeks to ensure only voluntary, truthful statements from persons questioned by the police or in the custody of the police and facing criminal charges are admitted into evidence. The confessions rule seeks to eliminate admissions or confessions that are the result of abusive coercion by persons in authority.

The “confessions rule” focuses not just on reliability but also on voluntariness. The rule offers protections beyond those guaranteed by the Charter. The application of the confessions rule is contextual. Each hearing (voir dire) to determine the voluntariness of a statement provided by an accused to a person in authority permits the court to understand the circumstances surrounding the confession and to determine if those circumstances give rise to a reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of the statement, considering all aspects of the rule.

See Part 2 of the Confessions Rule.

Continue reading “The Confessions Rule”

Most statements made by an accused subsequent to his arrest are statements made to the investigating police officers or others involved in the investigation and prosecution of crime. Prosecutors rely upon admissions or confessions by the accused subsequent to arrest to assist them in convicting the accused of whatever crimes are alleged. Police officers and Crown attorneys are considered to be “in authority” over the accused and therefore our courts treat any admissions or confessions as inadmissible unless or until they are demonstrated by the prosecution to be voluntary.
Continue reading “Statements to Persons in Authority (Police officers, Crown Attorneys)”

Occasionally, the court is confronted with evidence of statements by an accused that contain both inculpatory and exculpatory parts. Case law directs trial Judges to consider it dangerous to instruct the jury in a way that suggests that inculpatory statements should be given more weight than exculpatory statements.1 Prior to the Supreme Court of Canada establishing this rule of evidence, many trial Judges expressed the opinion, written or delivered orally to juries, that if the accused said something detrimental to his own case, he would not have done so unless his inculpatory comments were true. Their theory, apparently, was that a person was unlikely to say something disapproving, harmful or adverse to himself that is false.
Continue reading “Mixed Statements: Inculpatory and Exculpatory”

Section 666 of the Criminal Code provides as follows:

Where, at a trial, the accused adduces evidence of his good character, the prosecutor may, in answer thereto, before a verdict is returned, adduce evidence of a previous conviction(s) of the accused for any offences, including any previous conviction by reason of which a greater punishment may be imposed.
Continue reading “Character Evidence (part 4)”

Character evidence for the accused can be challenged by the prosecution. Once placed in issue at trial it opens the door for the prosecution to respond with evidence of bad character. If the Crown responds with evidence of bad character, it is admissible solely to rebut the evidence of good character and is only admissible if the accused first puts his character in issue.
Continue reading “Character Evidence (part 3)”

Good character evidence must be “general” in nature. It should also relate to a specific aspect of the case.
For example, where the accused is charged with a violent crime, his general reputation in the community as a non-violent individual is particularly relevant.

Continue reading “Character Evidence (part 2)”

The accused is entitled to produce evidence of his good character. If the Judge or jury determines that the accused is of good character, it may influence their decision in concluding that the accused is not guilty of the crime. Character evidence, however, is not, standing alone, a defence to any criminal charge. It has other value. The good character of an accused may strengthen the credibility of the accused. Good character may support the unlikeliness that the accused would commit the offence charged. In a jury trial the Judge is obligated to instruct the jury that evidence of good character may be used to show that the accused is not the type of person likely to have committed the offence alleged.
Continue reading “Character Evidence”