Carson M. Coughlin

In a pre‑trial voir dire in a first degree murder prosecution, the accused sought to exclude a police interview conducted the day the victim’s body was discovered.

The court considered whether the accused was detained during questioning at the police station and therefore entitled to rights to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Applying the detention factors from R. v. Moran and the objective test for psychological detention articulated in R. v. Grant, the court found the accused was effectively detained when interviewed after being transported in a locked police cruiser and held in an interview room for hours without a caution.

Because the accused was not advised of his right to counsel, his Charter rights were breached.

The statement was excluded under s. 24(2), and the court noted that it would also have had a reasonable doubt regarding voluntariness.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown brought a pretrial application to admit the videotaped police interviews of the eight-year-old brother of the deceased under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The child had returned to Jamaica and his mother refused to permit him to testify.

While the necessity requirement was met, the court found the statements lacked threshold reliability due to material inconsistencies, the child's tendency to guess or make assumptions, and the lack of opportunity for cross-examination.

The Crown's application to admit the hearsay evidence was dismissed.

The accused was charged with manslaughter following the death of her common-law spouse, who was cut during an altercation at a house party.

The Crown sought to admit a portion of the accused's statement to police made during a 15.5-hour interrogation.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, rendering her detention unlawful and a breach of section 9 of the Charter.

Furthermore, the police violated the accused's right to silence by using a Commissioner of Oaths to compel a KGB statement under threat of criminal sanction.

The court excluded the statement under both the common law confessions rule and section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant, a store manager, was convicted of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old employee.

He appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were deficient and failed to explain why his evidence was rejected and the complainant's evidence was accepted.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court agreed, finding that the trial judge's reasons were largely conclusory, misapprehended important defence evidence, and failed to address significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The accused was charged with impaired driving contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

He sought to exclude breath test results, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 8 and 10, specifically claiming the screening demand was not made forthwith as required by section 254(2) and that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel.

The court found that the police did not breach the accused's constitutional rights.

The screening demand was made promptly once grounds were formed, the overall delay was reasonable given the volatile circumstances requiring officer safety and situation stabilization, and there was no realistic opportunity to provide counsel before the screening test given the brief nine-minute window and unstable conditions.