Robert Skeggs

In a pre-trial voir dire for a second-degree murder case, the court ruled on the admissibility of a 911 call and a police statement made by the accused.

The court found that the accused was not detained during the 911 call and that his participation was voluntary.

Furthermore, the court held that the accused's subsequent statement to a detective was voluntary under the Oickle standard and that his section 10(b) Charter right to counsel was not violated.

Both the 911 call and the police statement were ruled admissible at trial.

The accused brought an application to exclude his statement to police following his arrest for a home invasion robbery, alleging Charter breaches and involuntariness.

The court dismissed the Charter claims, finding the accused understood his jeopardy when he spoke with counsel despite being under the influence of drugs.

However, the court found that the interviewing officer offered an improper inducement by suggesting a confession to a drug-fueled crime would potentially change the Crown's course of action.

Consequently, the portion of the statement made after the inducement was excluded as involuntary.

The applicants, accused of a home invasion robbery, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (including firearms and disguises) found in the trunk of a vehicle.

The police had stopped the vehicle hours after the robbery without reasonable grounds, detaining the occupants for an extended period without reading them their rights to counsel.

The court found serious breaches of sections 9 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the seriousness of the breaches and their impact on the applicants' rights outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits, resulting in the exclusion of the evidence.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to exclude breath room evidence, which had led to the accused's acquittal on a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The trial judge found that the police breached the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel of choice by failing to make reasonable inquiries to contact her specific lawyer after leaving a message at an office number.

The Superior Court of Justice found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the police failed to make reasonable efforts.

The court upheld the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and dismissed the appeal.

The applicants, charged with offences relating to a home invasion robbery, brought an application to adduce evidence that a third party committed the robbery.

The court found a strong nexus between the third party and the crime, noting police intelligence and surveillance linking the third party to a vehicle similar to the one used in the robbery.

The court held that the proposed evidence was relevant and probative, and its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The application was allowed.

The accused was charged with historical sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and uttering threats against his niece, relating to an alleged incident in 1992 when she was 16.

The trial centered on the credibility and reliability of the complainant's memory after 26 years.

Although the trial judge rejected the accused's evidence, the judge found the complainant's evidence lacked the necessary reliability and accuracy to meet the criminal standard of proof.

The accused was acquitted on all charges.