The court conducted a voir dire on the voluntariness of two statements made by the accused to police following arrest for theft-related offences.
The first was a spontaneous utterance made immediately upon arrest, while the second was a lengthy custodial interrogation conducted approximately eight hours later.
The accused alleged physical mistreatment during arrest and argued the later interview was involuntary due to untreated drug withdrawal and oppressive conditions during detention.
Applying the voluntariness principles from R. v. Oickle, the court admitted the spontaneous utterance but excluded the custodial interview.
The court held that the refusal to address withdrawal symptoms and the accused’s humiliating state of dress created a quid pro quo and an atmosphere of oppression raising a reasonable doubt about voluntariness.
