The Crown applied to admit a confession made by the accused during a voluntary attendance at a police station.
The accused was not detained and was repeatedly informed he was free to leave, but repeatedly stated he wanted to go to jail due to homelessness, personal hardship, and perceived injuries.
The defence argued the confession was involuntary due to oppressive personal circumstances and inducement.
Applying the confessions rule and the framework in R. v. Oickle, the court held the accused had an operating mind but found that the confession was motivated by the perceived benefit of incarceration and oppressive circumstances unrelated to police misconduct.
The Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and the statement was excluded.
