PFD445 - week 6,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

• Voluntariness


  Did the accused choose to speak to the police? Was that choice made: free from improper inducements from Police, by an accused who possessed an "operating mind", free from oppressive circumstances, free of any "improper" police trickery
• Inducement


  When an inducement is made by a person in authority, any resulting statements will be inadmissible if: the inducement is something the accused believes the police control (creating a quid pro quo), it's a strong enough inducement to raise doubt about whether the subjects "will has been overborne"
• Threats/Promises


  A threatening posture or language even if there is no physical contact/gestures, stating or even suggesting negative events will occur if the subject does not speak
• Coercion


  The idea of coercive activity is absolute: it is not that a statement is made by a person who would rather not have had to make it, but rather that the person felt, as a result of the interrogator's behaviour, that they had no choice but to comply
• Operating Mind


  The accused understood what he was saying and the consequences of saying it to a person in authority
• Police Trickery

  Police may resort to tricks or other forms of deceit. It is not per se improper for the police to lie. The courts have been cautious not to unduly limit police techniques. In some circumstances, however, the use of police trickery may render an otherwise admissible statement inadmissible
• Shock test: Belittling the subjects counsel, Pretending to be a religious figure (chaplain, priest, rabbi, imam, etc.), Pretending to be Counsel, Using forged Documents, Injecting "truth serum" under the pretence it was insulin
• Trickery - What's ok?


  Appeals to conscience, Letter of apology, Playing intercepted communication, Mr. BIG, Undercover officer "cell mate"
• The "Trinity" of interviewing outlines the limits of police questioning imposed by the common law confession rule, addressed the issue of "right to silence" in the interrogational setting, and addressed the "right to counsel" and police questioning
• R. v. Oickle (2000) - The suspect was never mistreated, questioning was in a friendly, benign tone. There were no inducements strong enough to raise a reasonable doubt as to voluntariness. He was informed that the interpretation of the polygraph was not admissible but what he said was admissible. Exaggeration of the polygraph accuracy will not, standing alone, render a confession involuntary. None of the actions by police were considered oppressive, threatening, or coercive as to shock the public. The SCC deemed the confession voluntary.
• R. v. Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35 - The initial interview, the talk with the UC Officer, and the re-enactment were proven to be voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and admissible in common law. Also, Sec. 10(b) of the Charter was satisfied by the two calls with counsel prior to the interview because once the person has been advised of their rights, exercised the rights to retain and instruct counsel, police can then continue the interview.
• R. v. Singh, 2007 SCC 48 - A requirement that police not question people who simply say they don't want to talk would overshoot the protection afforded to a person's freedom of choice. Further, it ignores the states interest in the effective investigation of crime. Balancing state and individual interests is the heart of this issue. The judge held, the interrogation and the Sing's incriminating admission came freely and did not result from police systematically breaking down his operating mind or undermining his right to silence.