During a criminal trial, the accused challenged the admissibility of a videotaped police statement, alleging it was involuntary and obtained in breach of Charter rights under ss. 7 and 10.
The court considered whether the accused invoked the right to counsel and whether police were required to cease questioning or provide further clarification.
The judge held the accused did not clearly assert the right to counsel and had been repeatedly advised of that right, including prior consultation with duty counsel.
Applying principles from leading Supreme Court authorities on voluntariness and the right to silence, the court found no threats, oppression, trickery, or absence of an operating mind.
The Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and no Charter breach was established.
