The appellant, a young offender, was convicted of second-degree murder based on a second statement made to police after an initial statement was ruled inadmissible.
The first statement was excluded because the appellant was not advised of the possibility of being transferred to adult court, vitiating his waiver of the right to counsel.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the second statement was also inadmissible.
It was causally connected to the first statement, as the first statement was a substantial factor leading to the making of the second, and the taint of the initial Charter and Young Offenders Act breaches was not cured by a subsequent consultation with counsel.
The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.
