The Crown sought a voluntariness determination for a video recorded statement made by the accused, who was charged with first degree murder.
The defence brought a cross-motion to exclude the statement under sections 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.
The court found the initial portion of the statement voluntary and admissible.
However, the latter portion was ruled involuntary and inadmissible because the interviewing officer used inducements and implied threats, suggesting the accused would only have credibility if he spoke during the interview.
The court also found a section 10(b) Charter breach because the officer failed to hold off on questioning after the accused requested counsel upon being detained.
