Brian Starkman

During a jury trial for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to stop at the scene of an accident, the Crown brought a mid-trial application to determine the voluntariness of the accused's statement to police.

The defence argued the interviewing officer made implied threats or inducements that undermined the accused's right to silence.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found that while the officer's comments implied a subtle quid pro quo, they were not strong enough to overbear the accused's will.

The court concluded the statement was voluntary and admissible.

The accused was charged with attempting to administer a noxious thing with intent to cause bodily harm, after allegedly lacing his pregnant former partner's drink with synthetic hormones to induce an abortion.

The trial proceeded before a judge alone.

The Crown conceded that the complainant was not a credible or reliable witness, but argued that circumstantial evidence proved the accused's guilt.

The court found that the complainant's evidence was fraught with inconsistencies and animus, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to overcome reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty.