The Crown sought a ruling that statements made by the accused to police during two interviews in 2006 were voluntary and admissible at trial.
The defence argued the statements were induced by promises of protection for the accused’s family and that the failure to provide Charter cautions violated ss. 7 and 10(b).
The court held the accused was not detained in relation to the investigation and that the interviews were investigative in nature while he was incarcerated on unrelated matters.
Applying the legal detention test, the court found no inducements or promises of favour tied to providing information.
The statements were therefore found to be voluntary and admissible.
