The accused brought extensive pre‑trial motions in a second degree murder prosecution following a mistrial, seeking exclusion of eyewitness identification evidence and a stay of proceedings based on alleged police misconduct during a reinvestigation.
The defence argued that police interviews of eyewitnesses and alibi witnesses were coercive, leading to unreliable identification and the destruction of alibi evidence, contrary to ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.
The court found significant improprieties in certain police interviews, including leading identification questioning and oppressive tactics toward an alibi witness, but concluded the conduct did not amount to an overarching abuse of process warranting a stay.
The court held the main eyewitness’s identification evidence was admissible, but restricted the Crown’s use of another witness’s statement to credibility purposes only and excluded portions of an alibi witness’s statement obtained through oppressive interrogation.
Lesser evidentiary remedies were imposed to ensure trial fairness.
