R. v. Tessier, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 144, 2002 SCC 6

Carmen Samuel Tessier Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. Tessier

Neutral citation: 2002 SCC 6.

File No.: 28592.

2002: January 18.

Present: Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for new brunswick

Criminal law -- Evidence -- Confession -- Voluntariness -- Trial judge ruling that accused’s statements were involuntary and inadmissible -- Trial judge properly applied required elements of voluntariness test.

Cases Cited

Applied: R. v. Oickle, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2000 SCC 38.

APPEAL from a judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (2001), 153 C.C.C. (3d) 361, 41 C.R. (5th) 242, 245 N.B.R. (2d) 1, 636 A.P.R. 1, [2001] N.B.J. No. 131 (QL), 2001 NBCA 34, allowing the Crown’s appeal from the accused’s acquittal on a charge of second degree murder and ordering a new trial. Appeal allowed.

Allen G. Doyle, for the appellant.

W. Stephen Wood, Q.C., for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1] Iacobucci J. -- This appeal comes to us as of right. Although the trial judge did not have the benefit of this Court’s reasons in R. v. Oickle, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2000 SCC 38, in our view, the trial judge properly applied the required elements of the voluntariness test to conclude, in all the circumstances, that he had a reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of the confession. We agree with Deschênes J.A., dissenting in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, that the appeal did not raise a question of law alone.

[2] In our opinion, Deschênes J.A. properly and succinctly characterized the issue as follows:

As can be seen from the comments of the trial judge, he took the view that the question of voluntariness had to be decided on the basis of a consideration of all the circumstances surrounding the taking of the statements. In adopting the wider approach he did not, in my view, apply the wrong test. The appropriate test to be applied in this case was whether the evidence raised a reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary by reason of a combination of oppressive conditions and inducements, taking into account all the circumstances surrounding the taking of the impugned statements. This is precisely the test utilized by the trial judge.

((2001), 153 C.C.C. (3d) 361, 2001 NBCA 34, at p. 393)

[3] Consequently, we would allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, and restore the acquittal entered by the trial judge.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellant: Allen G. Doyle, Saint John.

Solicitor for the respondent: The Department of Justice, Saint John.