John F. Scandiffio

In a mid-trial voir dire in a robbery prosecution, the court determined whether an accused's statement to police was admissible.

Applying the voluntariness framework for statements to persons in authority, the court held there was credible evidence the impugned statement was made and that ultimate reliability disputes were for the trier of fact at trial.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, emphasizing the absence of threats, coercion, or promises and the proximity of a consultation with duty counsel.

The defence argument that non-recording rendered the statement inherently suspect was rejected on the facts and governing appellate authority.

The statement was admitted into evidence.

Sentencing following conviction for bank robbery committed by passing a note claiming the offender had a gun.

The court considered whether a conditional sentence was legally available and whether it should be imposed.

The judge held that where a robber merely passes a threatening note without possessing the means to carry out the threat, the offence does not constitute a “serious personal injury offence” under s. 752 of the Criminal Code, making a conditional sentence legally available.

However, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the seriousness and prevalence of bank robberies, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

The offender received an 18‑month custodial sentence with credit for pre‑sentence custody and a subsequent probation order.

The accused was charged with robbery after presenting a demand note to a bank teller and taking approximately $400.

He admitted committing the robbery but argued he acted under duress, claiming an unknown armed individual in a vehicle forced him to carry out the offence and threatened to shoot his friend if he refused.

The court held that s. 17 of the Criminal Code excludes the defence of duress for robbery and that, absent a constitutional challenge, the statutory exclusion remained operative.

In the alternative, the court assessed the common law defence of duress and rejected it, finding the accused’s testimony not credible and concluding that the alleged threats were fabricated and unsupported by the evidence.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the robbery voluntarily.