The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after the provincial appellate court excluded the accused’s post-polygraph confessions to multiple arsons.
The majority held that the common law confessions rule is a contextual voluntariness inquiry concerned with both reliability and fairness, requiring consideration of threats or promises, oppression, operating mind, and police trickery.
It further held that appellate courts owe deference to a trial judge’s factual assessment of voluntariness absent palpable and overriding error.
On the facts, the police interrogation, while persistent and strategic, did not involve inducements or oppression sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to voluntariness, and the confessions and re-enactment were admissible.
