# ONTARIO
# SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CRIM(P) 382/13
DATE: 2015 06 09
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Michael P. Michaud, for the Crown
- and -
NATALIE BROWN
Maurice J. Mattis, for the Defence
HEARD: May 11 to 15, 2015
RULING
VOLUNTARINESS
FAIRBURN J
## Overview
[1] Natalie Brown is indicted on three counts of robbery, all alleged to be have been committed at bus stops during the evening of July 19, 2012. She is the alleged driver of the getaway car in each of the three incidents.
[2] She was arrested at 2:00 a.m. on July 21, 2012 and transported to the Peel Regional Police Service [“PRPS”] 21 Division where she was interviewed. She was placed in the interview room at 3:36 a.m. The substantive portion of the interview commenced at 4:05 a.m. after she had exercised her right to counsel. A single officer interviewed her, and the interview was completed by 6:25 a.m. when she was removed from the interview room.
[3] The Crown seeks the admission of her statement and argues that its voluntariness has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence argues that I should have a doubt about the voluntariness of the statement because: (1) Ms. Brown was threatened and improperly induced during the statement; and (2) it was given under oppressive circumstances. While I find that Ms. Brown was offered some inducements during the interview, her will was never overborne. Nor did she suffer from oppressive circumstances sufficient to render the statement involuntary.
[4] As I shared with counsel shortly after the motion was heard, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Brown’s July 21, 2012 statement is voluntary. I ruled it admissible. So as not to delay the trial, I said that written reasons would follow. These are my written reasons.
## The Evidence
### Overview
[5] An Agreed Statement of Fact was filed on the voir dire. As well, the court heard the viva voce evidence of five officers from the PRPS who had contact with Ms. Brown leading up to and including her statement: (1) the arresting officer, Cst. Ian Holder; (2) Cst. Holder’s partner, Cst. Gavin McIntaggart; (3) the booking officer, Cst. Ryan Fernandes; (4) the officer in charge of 21 Division during the evening of July 21, 2012, Staff Sgt. Derek Vammus; and (5) the interviewing officer, Cst. Ian Plummer.
[6] Ms. Brown also gave evidence. She swore an affidavit which was supplemented by a short examination-in-chief. She was then cross-examined by Crown Counsel.
[7] A summary of the evidence follows.
### Agreed Statement of Fact
[8] During the evening of July 19, 2012, three people were robbed at bus stops in Brampton. There is agreement with respect to two of the robberies. In both cases, a man approached the victims. In one case he “flashed a gun” at the victim. In the other case he took a gun out, pointed it at the belly of a woman, and then discharged it into nearby grass. In the case of this latter robbery, the victim saw the man run to a waiting vehicle that looked like a van. He entered the passenger’s side of the vehicle before it drove off.
[9] In the early morning of July 20, 2012, the police located a van with licence plate BJNX 949 at 43 Goldwin Avenue, Toronto. This is where Ms. Brown lived with her four children, then ranging in age from 18 months to 12 years. MTO records showed the van was registered to Natalie Brown. The van was searched under warrant. Located in the vehicle were a number of things, including bus tickets and a receipt belonging to the second robbery victim. Also located in the van was a letter of termination of employment addressed to “Revington Bailey”. On July 20, 2012, Revington Bailey sold an iPhone stolen from the first robbery victim to another individual who believed the phone to be Bailey’s.
[10] The police obtained a search warrant for Ms. Brown’s residence. It was executed in the early morning of July 21, 2012.
## The Testimony of Cst. Ian Holder
[11] Cst. Holder was present on Goldwin Avenue when the search warrant was executed on Ms. Brown’s home. He was assigned to stay on the exterior perimeter of Goldwin Avenue, a cul-de-sac. He and his partner, Cst. Gavin McIntaggart, stationed themselves at the open end of the street.
[12] At 2:00 a.m., a 2012 black Ford Escape approached the police cruiser, attempting to gain entry to Goldwin Avenue. Cst. Holder spoke to the driver, a female who identified herself as Natalie Brown. He asked her to step out of the vehicle. She was placed under arrest for robbery, cautioned and given the right to counsel. She was cooperative but appeared angry.
[13] Cst. Holder did not pat her down as he did not see the need. He handcuffed her and placed her in the back of the police cruiser. She did not appear sleepy. She said that she needed medication because she is a diabetic. Cst. Holder’s partner went to her home to retrieve the medication. She also expressed concern about childcare for her kids and provided Cst. Holder with a telephone number for her mother, Madge Da Costa. Cst. Holder placed a call to her mother so that arrangements could be made to care for the children. He made this call at 2:24 a.m.
[14] Ms. Brown also expressed concern about the rental vehicle she had been driving and provided Cst. Holder with a name and number to call. He also acted on this request. Once the medication had been retrieved, and arrangements made for the children and vehicle, the officers left the scene at 3:02 a.m. and proceeded to 21 Division with Ms. Brown. Cst. Holder testified that during the 1 hour and 2 minutes that Ms. Brown was in the vehicle at Goldwin Avenue, she did not appear sleepy. Rather, she appeared quiet and, perhaps, disappointed or put out.
[15] He has no recollection of Ms. Brown asking to see her children before they left the scene. Even if she had asked to see her kids, he would not have allowed this to occur as he felt that it would not be in the best interests of Ms. Brown’s children to see their mother under arrest and in handcuffs.
[16] At no point did Ms. Brown say she was uncomfortable. When his partner, Cst. McIntaggart, returned to the vehicle with her medication, she did not ask for it or say she needed it. While he cannot administer medication, Cst. Holder testified that in some situations he may do so. For example, if a person is showing signs of needing medication, or if he feels that someone’s life is compromised by not having it, he would administer the medication. He saw none of these things and had no concerns about Ms. Brown’s welfare. If Ms. Brown had asked for her medication, Cst. Holder testified that he probably would have made a note of it. He did not threaten Ms. Brown. He did not promise her anything. He denied saying “I know you did not do it”.
## Cst. Gavin McIntaggart
[17] Consistent with Cst. Holder, Cst. McIntaggart testified about setting up on Goldwin Avenue and the approach of the black Ford Escape at 2:00 a.m. Following her arrest, Cst. McIntaggart was informed by Cst. Holder that Ms. Brown is a diabetic and that her medication was inside of her home. Cst. McIntaggart attended at Ms. Brown’s home to retrieve the medication. While he cannot remember how he knew where it was, he thinks he may have had a conversation with Ms. Brown about where to locate the medication. It took him some time to find the medication as the house was cluttered. He had to look in several areas and check in with the officer-in-charge to ensure that he was not interfering with the search. He collected the medication from three different areas of the home, including the foyer and kitchen areas.
[18] Once he returned to the police vehicle, they cleared the scene at 3:02 a.m. He has no recollection of Ms. Brown asking for her medication after he returned to the vehicle. He said that he is not qualified to administer medication, but if she had been in distress he would have called for an ambulance. In the normal course, detainees are taken to the police station and the booking officer and staff sergeant in charge of the division take care of the medication.
[19] He has no recollection of Ms. Brown asking to see her children. In re-examination he was asked whether a detainee under his charge has ever requested to see their children. He said that he has been asked but always denied the request. In Cst. McIntaggart’s view, it is not good for children to see their parents handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser.
[20] They arrived at 21 Division at 3:24 a.m. Ms. Brown was lodged without incident into the cells and he dealt with paperwork. Throughout his dealings with Ms. Brown, he never threatened her or promised her anything. She never appeared in distress. She was “very coherent”. She did not appear “woozy”. He has no recollection of Ms. Brown falling asleep in the police cruiser. When asked whether it was possible she was asleep and he may not have realized it, he acknowledged that it may be “possible”, but she was definitely awake when they arrived at the police station. He never told her that he thought she “did not do it”.
[21] Cst. McIntaggart was asked during cross-examination about Ms. Brown’s footwear. She had bare feet during the interview because her footwear had been removed. He said that this is common booking practice. If people request something for their feet, they will be provided with “soft booties”. He said that he is unsure of the type of flooring in the actual Criminal Investigative Branch [“CIB”] interview rooms (where Ms. Brown was interviewed), although the flooring in that general area is carpeted with some linoleum.
(Decision continues verbatim with the remaining paragraphs exactly as in the source, maintaining identical wording and paragraph numbering through paragraph [131], ending with:)
[131] I find beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement of Natalie Brown, dated July 21, 2012, is voluntary. It is admissible in this trial.
___________________________
FAIRBURN J
Released: June 9, 2015
---
COURT FILE NO.: CRIM(P) 382/13
DATE: 2015 06 09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
NATALIE BROWN
RULING
VOLUNTARINESS
FAIRBURN J
Released: June 9, 2015
minicounsel