Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-19-90000417 Date: 2021-04-28 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen – and – Craig Lawrence, Defendant/Respondent

Counsel: F. Alibhai and S. Tsai, for the Crown (Applicant) G. Zoppi, for the Defendant/Respondent

Heard: March 29 and 31, 2021 (by Zoom)

Before: Molloy J.

Reasons for Decision

(Voluntariness)

A. INTRODUCTION

[1] The Crown seeks a ruling that a statement made by the accused, Craig Lawrence, to two R.C.M.P. officers on April 6, 2017 was voluntary. At the time the statement was taken, Mr. Lawrence was in the custody of the Bermuda Police Service, awaiting trial on charges of importing fentanyl into Bermuda from Canada. Also charged in Bermuda with the same offence was Mr. Lawrence’s travelling companion, a woman named Jaqueline Robinson.

[2] Subsequently, Ms. Robinson was convicted of that offence in Bermuda, but Mr. Lawrence was found not guilty. He returned to Canada, where he now stands charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm to Ms. Robinson.

[3] The Crown does not seek to tender the statement into evidence as part of its case in chief, but merely seeks a ruling that the statement is voluntary. At the conclusion of the evidence and argument on this point, I reserved my decision. Having considered the matter, I find that the statement was voluntary. My reasons for this conclusion follow.

B. BACKGROUND FACTS

[4] The Crown alleges that on December 14, 2016, Mr. Lawrence (and three other co-accused) coerced Jaqueline Robinson to swallow 45 pellets containing fentanyl. The next day, Ms. Robinson flew to Bermuda with Mr. Lawrence and they checked into a hotel there. Over the next few days, Ms. Robinson excreted 44 of the 45 pellets. On December 20, 2016, an emergency call was made from the hotel room and responders found Ms. Robinson unconscious there. She was rushed to hospital. Mr. Lawrence was present in the room when the emergency responders arrived and appeared unwell, but refused medical treatment.

[5] By the next day, Lawrence’s condition had worsened and he also was admitted to hospital. Both Ms. Robinson and Mr. Lawrence were diagnosed as suffering from an overdose of fentanyl. While in the hospital Ms. Robinson vomited one capsule, which was found to have leached into her system and caused severe damage, including kidney failure. Although Mr. Lawrence’s condition was not as severe as Ms. Robinson’s, he also suffered kidney failure and some neurological damage, particularly to one hand.

[6] Mr. Lawrence was interviewed by officers of the Bermuda Police Services on December 30 and 31, 2016. Subsequently, two officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”), Cpl. Roddy Williams and Cst. Gurmel Gill, travelled to Bermuda to interview Mr. Lawrence in connection with an ongoing drug investigation in Canada. It is only this latter interview that is the subject of this application, although the recordings and transcripts of the interviews by Bermuda police were filed on the application to provide context.

[7] Both Mr. Lawrence and Ms. Robinson were charged with importing fentanyl into Bermuda. They were held in custody there until trial. Ms. Robinson was convicted at trial. Mr. Lawrence was acquitted. When he returned to Canada, he was charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm to Ms. Robinson. The foundation of the charge is that he and three other individuals in Toronto persuaded Ms. Robinson to swallow the fentanyl pellets, for the purpose of smuggling the drug into Bermuda inside her body. The other three individuals are also charged with exporting fentanyl from Canada to Bermuda and two of them are also charged with conspiracy to export fentanyl.

[8] The application now before me relates only to Mr. Lawrence and specifically to the statement he made to RCMP officers in Bermuda prior to the charges being laid in Canada and prior to his trial in Bermuda.

C. THE TEST TO BE APPLIED

[9] The onus is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement is voluntary.

[10] In R. v. Oickle, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the modern approach to voluntariness is concerned with: (a) threats or promises; (b) oppression; (c) operating mind; and (d) other police trickery.[^1] The rule has the “twin goals of protecting the rights of the accused without unduly limiting society’s need to investigate and solve crimes.”[^2]

[11] In addition to protecting the rights of an accused person, the underlying concern with statements obtained through threats, promises, or other inducements is the ultimate reliability of the statement. Oppressive conditions may also be seen to undermine the reliability of a statement, as the suspect may be prepared to say anything to get out of the circumstances they are in. The absence of oppression or specific threats or promises will not be a complete answer to the question of voluntariness. There is an overarching concern as to whether the accused’s statement flows from an operating mind, as opposed to a situation where their free will has been overborne.

[12] In Oickle, the Supreme Court identified the concern about police trickery as being specifically rooted in preserving the integrity of the criminal justice system. The question is whether the conduct of the police in obtaining the statement “is so appalling as to shock the community.”[^3]

[13] These are not water-tight compartments. The analysis is required to be a contextual one. All the surrounding circumstances must be taken into account and one category may affect another. For example, as[^4] noted in Oickle, a relatively minor inducement may be enough to render a statement involuntary if offered in the context of oppressive circumstances. On the other hand, if the suspect is treated properly, it will take a stronger inducement to support a finding that the statement is involuntary.

D. OPPRESSION

[14] The subject interview was conducted in an office at a police station in Bermuda. Mr. Lawrence was taken from the prison where he was being held pending trial and transported by Bermudan police to the office where the interview was to be held. At the police station, he was taken to a conference room to wait while the interview room was being set up. He was in that waiting room for approximately 30-45 minutes. There is no recording of anything that happened during that time.

[15] Cpl. Williams and Cst. Gill testified before me. Both said that they met Mr. Lawrence in the conference room for a matter of a few minutes prior to the commencement of the interview. They testified that there was an exchange of introductions and nothing else was discussed. They also testified that Mr. Lawrence’s lawyer in Bermuda, Grant Spurling, was with Mr. Lawrence during this exchange, and that they never had a discussion with Mr. Lawrence without his lawyer being present. I accept their evidence on this point.

[16] The interview itself started at 12:35 pm and ran for approximately one and one-half hours. In accordance with the custom in Bermuda, Mr. Lawrence’s lawyer, Grant Spurling, was present in the room throughout the interview. The only other persons present were the two RCMP officers.

[17] The entire interview was video and audio recorded. Mr. Lawrence was fully advised of his rights, including that he had no obligation to speak to the officers at all. He was told the interview would be conducted as if they were in Canada. He was told that he was a suspect in respect to the illegal exportation of drugs from Canada into Bermuda, even though he had not yet been charged. He was told he could speak to any lawyer he wished, including a lawyer from Canada. He was given the number for a legal aid duty counsel in Toronto. When asked if he wanted to speak to a lawyer, he replied that he was comfortable with the lawyer he had, who was present with him at the time. Mr. Lawrence signed a form agreeing to the accuracy of all of this.

[18] At the beginning of the interview, Mr. Lawrence asked for water, which was provided to him. He also said he was cold, and he was given a jacket to wear. Mr. Lawrence referred to fentanyl as being poisonous and described some of the effects it had on him that led to his hospitalization. He said he literally “came back from the dead” and described some of the lingering effects, including mobility issues with his hand and pain in the nerve endings and joints. The officer asked him if he was healthy enough to proceed with the interview that day and he stated, “I’m healthy enough to conduct it but I, I, I like I don’t know. When I first got here it was a struggle.” At no time during the interview did Mr. Lawrence or his lawyer state that he was not able to continue, nor did he ask to leave at any point.

[19] I accept the submission of defence counsel that Mr. Lawrence was in a vulnerable position. He was being held in prison in a foreign country, cut off from his family. He was having difficulty getting in touch with his family due to restrictions on his ability to make phone calls. He was clearly finding the experience of being in prison to be very difficult, describing it as “traumatizing.” He had just recently been through a health crisis and was still experiencing some of the after-effects of the fentanyl poisoning. It must be noted however, that none of these after-effects had any impact on his cognitive functioning.

[20] These are circumstances that form part of the context to be taken into account in assessing whether the statements he made were voluntary. However, there was nothing about the circumstances of the interview itself that could be said to be oppressive. The conditions were comfortable. The interviewing officers were courteous and respectful throughout. Every request Mr. Lawrence made was accommodated. Apart from one moment where Mr. Lawrence was overcome with emotion about missing his young son, he appeared to be calm and relaxed throughout the interview.

[21] Mr. Lawrence was still experiencing some medical issues, but said he felt healthy enough to proceed with the interview. Cpl. Williams testified that he was monitoring the situation to see if Mr. Lawrence appeared to be in any discomfort, but saw no reason to discontinue the interview. Having watched the video, I agree that Mr. Lawrence appeared to have no health issues that interfered with his ability to participate in the interview and he never expressed any such concerns, nor did his lawyer who sat beside him throughout.

E. THREATS

[22] The RCMP officers made no threats. At the beginning of the interview, they advised Mr. Lawrence that they were there dealing with a Canadian investigation, separate from what was happening in Bermuda, and anything that anybody else might have said to him previously should not be considered in deciding whether to speak to them or not. Mr. Lawrence stated that he understood that.

[23] After Mr. Lawrence had refused to answer a number of questions, Cpl. Wilson asked him why he was choosing not to comment. Mr. Lawrence replied that he had tried to help the investigation in Bermuda and that had landed him in jail. He said that he therefore did not want to say anything that could compromise him or be used against him. The following exchange then occurred:

RW – So, so how would something compromise you?

CL – I have no idea. I wonder how the statement I gave them was going to compromise me and land me in jail. But yet they wanted….to cut my head off.

RW – Sorry?

CL – They want to cut my head off. Basically they are trying to threaten me, telling me that I’m conspiring and conspiring comes with ten years in in that facility? Huh geez.

RW – Who are you talking about?

CL – The Bermuda police.

RW – Oh I see okay. Alright. And that’s why I, I read before and I know that it is what it is. The secondary caution before. In terms of whatever you said to anyone else is separate in this statement okay? This is for a Canadian investigation.[^5]

[24] Later in the interview, Cpl. Williams again asked why Mr. Lawrence was repeatedly saying “no comment” to a line of questions. Mr. Lawrence again said he tried to help out the Bermuda police and as a result had now been in jail for three months. Again, Cpl. Williams stated that they were the RCMP, not the Bermuda police, and that this was a separate and distinct inquiry.[^6]

[25] I make no finding about whether the police in Bermuda did or did not threaten Mr. Lawrence. Certainly, they did not threaten to cut off his head, and nobody suggests that was the case. That was merely hyperbole, which I am confident he did not mean literally. However, the important point is that the RCMP officers made no threats in order to get Mr. Lawrence to talk to them and they specifically disavowed any statements made by the Bermuda police as being irrelevant to the Canadian investigation.

[26] At one point in the interview, Mr. Lawrence spoke of wanting to go home to Canada. Cpl. Williams asked him if he had any fear of reprisals if he went back to Canada or if he thought he would be in any danger or if anybody there would be asking questions about the fentanyl brought into Bermuda. Mr. Lawrence answered “No comment” to all of those questions. I do not consider these questions to be any kind of veiled threat. Cpl. Williams was merely inquiring whether Mr. Lawrence was worried for his safety. This was not connected in any manner to any statements made by Mr. Lawrence to the police, and certainly did not induce him to make any statements. It was these sorts of questions that Mr. Lawrence persistently refused to answer.

[27] I find that there was nothing said by Mr. Lawrence that was in any way prompted by a real or perceived threat made by the RCMP.

F. INDUCEMENTS, PROMISES, and TRICKERY

General Principles

[28] The concern about promises or inducements offered to a suspect by police is that these may prompt that person to make an untruthful statement to obtain the promised reward. Such concerns do not arise merely because an interrogator is being friendly or building trust, nor when the interrogator appeals to the suspect’s conscience or suggests he “do the right thing.” In the Supreme Court of Canada’s seminal decision on this topic in R. v. Oickle, Iacobucci J. held:

In summary, courts must remember that the police may often offer some kind of inducement to the suspect to obtain a confession. Few suspects will spontaneously confess to a crime. In the vast majority of cases, the police will have to somehow convince the suspect that it is in his or her best interests to confess. This becomes improper only when the inducements, whether standing alone or in combination with other factors, are strong enough to raise a reasonable doubt about whether the will of the subject has been overborne. On this point I found the following passage from R. v. Rennie (1981), 74 Cr. App. R. 207 (C.A.), at p. 212, particularly apt:

Very few confessions are inspired solely by remorse. Often the motives of an accused are mixed and include a hope that an early admission may lead to an earlier release or a lighter sentence. If it were the law that the mere presence of such a motive, even if promoted by something said or done by a person in authority, led inexorably to the exclusion of a confession, nearly every confession would be rendered inadmissible. This is not the law. In some cases the hope may be self-generated. If so, it is irrelevant, even if it provides the dominant motive for making the confession. In such a case the confession will not have been obtained by anything said or done by a person in authority. More commonly the presence of such a hope will, in part at least, owe its origin to something said or done by such a person. There can be few prisoners who are being firmly but fairly questioned in a police station to whom it does not occur that they might be able to bring both their interrogation and their detention to an earlier end by confession.

The most important consideration in all cases is to look for a quid pro quo offer by interrogators, regardless of whether it comes in the form of a threat or a promise.[^7]

Offers of Help

[29] At the beginning of the interview, after Mr. Lawrence was advised of his rights and discussed his health with the officers, Cpl. Williams asked if he had been in touch with the Canadian Embassy. Mr. Lawrence then complained that the Embassy person he spoke to was unable to help with his inability to make phone calls and have a canteen allowance, both of which needed to have funding applied to his account in the institution. He said that he was told there was a delay because a correctional officer had been on vacation, but that the officer was now back and still nothing had happened. Cpl. Williams responded that he had no knowledge of this but could ask the correctional officer to see what was going on, stating, “I can just ask a question. There’s no harm in that right?” He then proceeded straightaway into the interview. No promise was made. The RCMP did not even promise to speak to the correctional officer, much less promise a result.[^8]

[30] The same issue came up at other points in the interview. At approximately the midway point, in discussing attending a comedy show in Toronto with his brother, Mr. Lawrence said that his brother works for Toronto police, and stated that there would be “no need for [him] to get involved in anything like this in the first place because that’s just an embarrassment to our family.” Cpl. Williams said he understood that dynamic as he came from a large family in which not everyone was a police officer. Cpl. Williams then stated:

I’ll get his [the brother’s] name after. Uh, I won’t do it for the purpose of the recording but uh I’ll put it out there to you as well. If there’s anyone you want us to reach out to when we go to Canada? Okay? I’ll put that offer out there for you. And we can talk about that. We don’t have to do it for the purpose of this so we can do that after.[^9]

[31] This was a more direct offer to do something to assist Mr. Lawrence. What is notable, however, is that there was no quid pro quo for this assistance. It was not in any way made conditional upon Mr. Lawrence’s cooperation. Furthermore, Cpl. Williams emphasized that this had nothing to do with the interview itself, and was something they would discuss separately when they were finished.

[32] The issue came up again towards the end of the interview.[^10] Mr. Lawrence became quite emotional when talking about his 11-year-old son in Canada. Again, Cpl. Williams said he would reach out to Mr. Lawrence’s family and tell them about putting money on Mr. Lawrence’s phone account. He also offered to bring back any messages Mr. Lawrence wanted passed on, but also suggested Mr. Lawrence might prefer to go through his lawyer to do that. He merely gave him that option.

[33] These statements by Cpl. Williams come closer to an actual promise to speak to Mr. Lawrence’s family in an attempt to sort out his difficulties with his phone and canteen accounts. However, again, there is no quid pro quo. Also, this was very close to the end of the interview and nothing much was said thereafter by Mr. Lawrence. Further, even after this “promised” assistance, Mr. Lawrence continued to answer “no comment” to multiple questions asked of him, although answering other questions, which was a pattern throughout the interview.

[34] In my view, the RCMP were simply offering to help Mr. Lawrence communicate with his family. They may have made these offers to appear friendly or to build trust so as to persuade Mr. Lawrence to talk to them, or they may have been genuinely kind. However, such conduct is perfectly acceptable. If Mr. Lawrence chose to make statements because the interviewers were being decent to him, that does not make the statements involuntary. No offer or promise was ever made conditional upon his cooperation.

Double Jeopardy

[35] At the beginning of the interview, Cpl. Williams made it clear to Mr. Lawrence that he was under investigation in Canada with respect to exportation of fentanyl into Bermuda. He advised Mr. Lawrence that although he had not yet been charged, he was a suspect in that investigation. A short while later in the interview Mr. Lawrence referred to what he perceived to be threats made by the police in Bermuda. Cpl. Williams told him that the RCMP investigation was separate and apart from the Bermuda charges, but reminded him that he was in legal jeopardy with respect to possible charges against him in Canada, even though he had not yet been charged with an offence. He then asked Mr. Lawrence if he understood the meaning of double jeopardy and told him this was a “murky” area when dealing with charges in two different countries. He suggested to him that he should discuss this with his legal counsel.[^11]

[36] Two concerns arise from this reference to double jeopardy by Cpl. Williams. The first is whether this was a suggestion that nothing could happen to Mr. Lawrence in Canada because of the charges he was already facing in Bermuda giving rise to double jeopardy. The second is whether this reference constituted unacceptable trickery by the police. Mr. Zoppi, for the defence, points out that notwithstanding this reference to double jeopardy by Cpl. Williams, when Mr. Lawrence was acquitted in Bermuda of importing fentanyl, he was charged in Canada with criminal negligence causing bodily harm on precisely the same facts that were the foundation of the Bermuda charges. Mr. Zoppi also notes that the RCMP officers met twice with their legal counsel before travelling to Bermuda and argues that this reference to double jeopardy was a trick to make Mr. Lawrence believe he would not be in jeopardy in Canada if he gave information to the RCMP.

[37] The RCMP did not provide legal advice to Mr. Lawrence. They merely suggested he should talk to his own lawyer about double jeopardy. They certainly did not tell him that he could not be charged with an offence in Canada because of double jeopardy. Indeed, they told him the exact opposite – that he was facing jeopardy in Canada and was a suspect in their investigation.

[38] I do not find this to be an inducement offered as a quid pro quo for a statement. Further, I do not consider this to be police trickery, certainly not of a nature that would shock the community or undermine the integrity of the justice system.

Repatriation

[39] Towards the end of the interview, Mr. Lawrence started answering “no comment” to almost every question asked. Cpl. Williams asked him if there was anything he would like to comment on, to which Mr. Lawrence replied, “Other than I want to go home, nothing.”[^12] The following exchange then occurred:

580. RW – Okay. And you may not be at this stage in the legal process here and I’m just trying and I, I don’t know how far along so excuse me if I’m speaking out of turn. Have you explored the repatriation is that something that’s…

581. CL – I don’t even know about that.

582. RW – You don’t. Okay that’s, that’s discussed between you and (Indiscernible) I just didnt know if it something that you had already thought of or not. What, the question that I do ask because of that, then is if you were to explore repatriation say all this is over, or say theres no charges that go ahead and you’re released and free to go. Where are you going to go?

583. CL – Home.

[40] Having listened to the audio of entry 582, I believe the word the transcriptionist recorded as “Indiscernible” was actually “counsel,” but I agree it is difficult to tell.

[41] The concern here is whether this was some kind of inducement to Mr. Lawrence to cooperate with the RCMP in the hopes that he could be repatriated to Canada. Again, I find there was no legal advice given to Mr. Lawrence, merely a suggestion that this was something he could discuss with his lawyer. No promises of any kind were made, much less promises in exchange for a statement.

Leniency or Lesser Charges

[42] Cpl. Williams asked Mr. Lawrence if he used drugs. Mr. Lawrence replied that he had given up smoking weed because it gave him anxiety. Cpl. Williams asked if he used any other drugs apart from weed, and Mr. Lawrence answered, “No.” Cpl. Williams then stated, “By the way, you’re not going to be in trouble if you tell me that you use,” and Mr. Lawrence again responded, “No.”[^13] This was simply a true statement by the officer. They were not investigating Mr. Lawrence for drug use. In any event, this did not prompt a confession by Mr. Lawrence, but rather a denial. It was a brief exchange and I do not see it as having any impact on anything else Mr. Lawrence said in the interview.

[43] At a number of points, Cpl. Williams stated or implied that the primary focus of the Canadian police investigation was finding criminals higher up in the chain from Mr. Lawrence. Cpl. Williams appealed to Mr. Lawrence’s firsthand knowledge of the dangerous nature of fentanyl and the importance of getting it off the streets. I have no difficulty with these references. Clearly, the police were interested in more than Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Lawrence was fully aware of that. However, the RCMP did not offer any leniency in sentencing or lesser charges for Mr. Lawrence if he gave up the names of people higher up in the drug trafficking world. He was advised throughout that he was a suspect in the investigation and could be facing charges in Canada.

[44] Towards the end of the interview, Mr. Lawrence started to refuse to answer more questions. The following exchange then occurred:

560. RW – Can you help me understand why you are saying no comment

561. CL – From my understanding it’s my right to say no comment and therefore I don’t wanna, last person that tell me that bit to bit last person to tell me the statement that you just told me I tried to help him out and I’m in jail. Which is the Bermuda Police Force I tried to help them out and they said the same thing to me and I ended up in, I’m in jail for three months now straight and I, it’s traumatizing and no comment.

562. RW – Okay. And again all I can say and it might not make any measure of comfort okay because uh I’m getting the sense that you’re saying no comment in you’re gradually shutting down on me. Um is I’m not the Bermuda police. We’re the RCMP. Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Um that’s all I can offer you. Is that it is a separate and distinct interview.

563. CL – I understand about

564. RW – Yeah, alright. Um I’m not looking quite frankly I’m not looking to uh jam you up. Again back at the beginning of the interview, I did let you know that yeah there is jeopardy as is exist for you in Canada. Um but what I’m simply looking for here is the truth. Alright? And uh it is my hope although I certainly understand and sympathize with your right to say no comment and not provide a statement it is my hope um that you will help us uncover the truth so that we can go ahead with our investigation back home. And I get a sense that you understand what I mean by that okay?

565. CL – Mm hmm

566. RW – Um and so if there’s anything outside of, of what’s gone on here that’s um motivating you I guess to, to not make any disclosure again perfectly understandable it is your right and uh but I need you to understand those things. Does that make sense to you?

567. CL – Yeah

[45] The defence submits that Cpl. Williams’ statement at entry 564 (“I’m not looking to jam you up”) constitutes an improper inducement to get Mr. Lawrence to talk in exchange for no charges being laid against him. Under cross-examination, Cpl. Williams testified that this was a colloquial expression and that what he meant by it was that he was not there “to pile stuff on him.” He agreed that it meant he was not there to put Mr. Lawrence in jeopardy when he shouldn’t be in jeopardy.

[46] Of all of the points made by the defence, this is the one that gave me the most pause. However, on balance I find that when looked at in context, this was not an improper inducement. There was no express or implied promise not to proceed with charges against Mr. Lawrence if charges were warranted. On the contrary, Mr. Lawrence was made aware throughout that he was a suspect and could be charged. The RCMP employed a “good cop” kind of approach in this interview. They attempted to show Mr. Lawrence that they were there in good faith, that they were not interested in piling a bunch of unfair charges against him (as he had suggested had been threatened by the Bermuda police), and that they were most interested in getting information about criminals higher up in the drug supply chain. However, they did not ever offer any leniency or lesser charges in exchange for information, directly or indirectly.

Analysis

[47] In this case, the RCMP officers offered no reward to Mr. Lawrence in exchange for any statement he made. They appealed to his own knowledge of the horrific nature of fentanyl and told him, truthfully, that they were interested in apprehending criminals higher up on the supply chain and getting fentanyl off the streets. They were friendly and appeared sympathetic to Mr. Lawrence’s plight being cut off from his family in jail in a foreign country. They offered to help improve the lines of communication with his family in Canada.

[48] They suggested legal avenues he could explore with his lawyer, but did not allude to a likely outcome or give advice.

[49] At no time did the officers offer anything in the nature of a quid pro quo. There was not even a suggestion to Mr. Lawrence that there would be a reward if he cooperated by providing a statement the officers were looking for. There is nothing wrong with police officers pretending to be, or actually being, friendly or sympathetic to a suspect. It is often the case that a suspect will speak more freely to an officer he believes feels sorry for him. That does not make the statement involuntary, nor does it amount to police trickery. Likewise, merely suggesting that the accused speak to his lawyer about double jeopardy is nowhere close to the kind of trickery that would shock the public conscience.[^14]

G. UNDERSTANDING OF RIGHTS AND OPERATING MIND

[50] It is clear that Mr. Lawrence knew his rights, including that he could refuse to answer any questions. At the beginning of the interview, after Mr. Lawrence had been advised of his rights, there was some general discussion about his medical issues and his frustration with the prison authorities, as he had been unable to get funds transferred from his parents to allow him to have phone and canteen privileges. Cpl. Williams then suggested to Mr. Lawrence that he start from the beginning and tell him his “pure version statement” of what happened. Mr. Lawrence then stated:

Okay. So I understand that you want to get to the bottom of this and I want to help you all get to the bottom of this because this whole fentanyl thing is not a drug it’s actually poison alright there’s no, this should not be out there whatsoever. But the information that I can provide you cannot lead you to what you need to understand or what you need to get down to because I have no idea what the hell is going on here. Right? So based on the information that my legal representative has given me I’m going to have to state no comment.[^15]

[51] The transcript is organized by numbering each question and each answer sequentially, regardless of how many lines of transcript is taken up by the question or answer. The transcript is 31 pages long, with a total of 952 entries. This first substantive question was at page 6, and the “no comment” response was entry 127. Over the next 25 pages of transcript, Mr. Lawrence was selective about what he would and would not answer. He readily provided medical information about the effect fentanyl had on him and referred to it as a poison. Anything he did say tended to be exculpatory. However, he refused to answer many other questions. In total, he refused to answer specific questions another 58 times throughout the course of the interview.

[52] Towards the end of the interview, after a string of “no comment” answers, Cpl. Williams asked him why he was saying no comment. Mr. Lawrence responded, “From my understanding, it’s my right to say no comment and therefore I don’t wanna.”[^16]

[53] I conclude from this that from beginning to end Mr. Lawrence understood his right to remain silent and invoked it when he chose to do so. He had a lawyer with him for the entire interview, and it seems clear from his answer set out above that his lawyer had advised him not to answer questions. Notwithstanding this, the officers continued to ask him questions, which they were entitled to do,[^17] and he answered many of them. At no time was he pressured by the officers to answer. While Mr. Lawrence was undeniably in a vulnerable position, there was nothing about the interview itself, nor the manner in which it was conducted, that made it oppressive. As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Sinclair:[^18]

. . .While the police must be respectful of an individual’s Charter rights, a rule that would require the police to automatically retreat upon a detainee stating that he or she has nothing to say, in our respectful view, would not strike the proper balance between the public interest in the investigation of crimes and the suspect’s interest in being left alone.

[54] Mr. Lawrence brought an operating mind to bear and decided to answer some questions, but not others. His will was not overborne.

H. CONCLUSION

[55] Accordingly, I find that the statements made by Mr. Lawrence to the RCMP were voluntary.

Molloy J.

Released: April 28, 2021

[^1]: R. v. Oickle, 2000 SCC 38, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3. [^2]: Ibid, at para. 33. [^3]: Ibid, at paras. 65-67. [^4]: Ibid, at para. 71. [^5]: Interview Transcript, page 9, entries 214-220. [^6]: Ibid, page 20, entries 560-563 [^7]: R. v. Oickle, supra note 1, at para. 57. [^8]: Interview Transcript, page 5, entry 118-120. [^9]: Ibid, p. 16, entry 422. [^10]: Ibid, p. 23, entry 656. [^11]: Ibid, p. 10, entry 228-230. [^12]: Ibid, p. 21, entry 579. [^13]: Ibid, p. 9, entries 190-195. [^14]: It is my understanding that there will be a motion at trial related to the double jeopardy issue. My comments on this issue are restricted solely to voluntariness. [^15]: Interview Transcript, p. 6, entry 127. [^16]: Ibid, p. 20, entry 561. [^17]: R. v. Hebert. 1990 CanLII 118 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; R. v. Singh, 2007 SCC 48, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 405. [^18]: R. v. Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310, at para. 63.