The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in ruling his unrecorded confession to police was voluntary.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for his credibility findings on the voir dire, particularly regarding the police officer's intent in entering the interview room and the appellant's claim of an inducement.
Applying the principles from Moore-MacFarlane and Sheppard, the Court held that the failure to analyze the conflicting evidence and explain the findings was an error of law.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
