During a criminal trial for sexual offences, the Crown sought to admit a video‑recorded police statement given by the accused.
After a blended voir dire, the court found the statement voluntary but concluded that the accused’s right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter had been infringed because police failed to adequately address obvious language difficulties during the arrest and interview process.
The court held that the officers should have inquired further into the accused’s English comprehension and offered interpreter assistance to ensure meaningful exercise of the right to counsel.
Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court determined that admission of the statement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The statement was therefore excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
