On a preliminary voluntariness voir dire in a sexual assault prosecution, the court considered whether statements made by the accused to his spouse and two friends were made to persons in authority.
Applying the confessions-rule framework from Hodgson and related authorities, the court held the defence failed to establish an air of reality to the contention that any of the three civilians could reasonably be perceived as acting on behalf of police or prosecution or as capable of influencing the criminal process.
The chronology was significant because the impugned statements were made before police had been contacted.
The Crown therefore was not required to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt as a precondition to admissibility.
