The accused brought a voir dire challenging the admissibility of a police statement following arrest for sexual assault, alleging a breach of s. 10(b) of the Charter and involuntariness due to an alleged inducement that he would be home by dinner if he cooperated.
The court found that police adequately informed the accused of his right to counsel and properly clarified the right when questions were raised during the interview.
The judge rejected the accused’s evidence that an inducement had been made and found the officer’s testimony credible.
Applying the voluntariness framework from leading Supreme Court authorities, the court concluded the interview was conducted respectfully without threats, oppression, or inducements.
The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary.
