Henry Van Drunen

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to confirm the voluntariness and admissibility of statements made by the accused during a police interview.

The accused was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault.

The court applied the confessions rule and the operating mind test, finding that the police officer's defective caution and ambiguous comments created a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused comprehended that his statements could be used against him in criminal proceedings.

The Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, and the statements were excluded.

The Crown brought a voir dire application to determine the voluntariness of videotaped statements made by the accused during a formal police interview.

The accused had been arrested after fleeing police and was apprehended with the assistance of a police dog, resulting in significant bite injuries.

Prior to the interview, the accused experienced severe pain, sleep deprivation, and a lack of food.

The court found no police trickery or improper threats or promises.

However, considering the cumulative effect of the accused's pain, sleep deprivation, medication, and lack of food, the court had a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused's statements were voluntary.

The statements were ruled inadmissible.