During a jury trial for importing cocaine into Canada, the Crown sought a ruling on a voir dire that two statements made by the accused to border officers were voluntary and admissible.
The defence argued the accused’s limited English proficiency meant she lacked an operating mind and that the officers’ notes were an unreliable record because the statements were not audio or video recorded.
The court held the accused demonstrated sufficient comprehension of English during her interactions with officers and after receiving legal advice, and therefore the statements were not involuntary due to language barriers.
Despite concerns about the absence of recording equipment, the officers’ contemporaneous notes and recap were found to provide an adequate substitute record.
The statements were ruled admissible, with issues of accuracy and weight left for the jury.
