The young person appealed his robbery conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting his videotaped statement to police.
The first statement was inadmissible due to non-compliance with the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in applying the derived confessions rule, as the second statement was tainted by the first and the police failed to advise the young person that the first statement was inadmissible.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
