R v Oickle
| R v Oickle | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Hearing: November 2, 1999 Judgment: September 29, 2000 | |
| Citations | 2000 SCC 38, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3 |
| Docket No. | 26535 |
| Court Membership | |
|
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour | |
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | Iacobucci J. (paras. 1-105) |
| Dissent | Arbour J. (paras. 106-152) |
R v Oickle, 2000 SCC 38, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3, is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the common law rule for confessions. Though the Charter remains in force for confessions made while in custody, the common law rule still applies in all circumstances. The majority outlined factors to determine whether a confession is voluntary.
Background
Richard Oickle was under investigation by police for a series of fires. He voluntarily underwent a polygraph test. The police told him he had failed and began to question him. He eventually confessed to starting the fires. Oickle was told he was under arrest and brought to the police station for further questioning. He was put in a cell near 3am, around 9 hours after his confession. The police talked to him again at 6am asking him to provide a re-enactment, which he did.
At trial he was convicted of arson. The Court of Appeal found that the confession was inadmissible and overturned the conviction.
And then after review from the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Iacobucci, writing for the majority, found that the confession was admissible.
Reasons of the court
Justice Iacobucci, writing for the majority, found that the confession was admissible. He stated the factors that should be used to determine whether a confession is voluntary:
- The Court must consider whether the police made any threats or promises. Iacobucci states that whether there is a quid pro quo for the confession will usually determine whether it was voluntary.[1]
- The Court must look for oppression. That is, where there is distasteful or inhumane conduct that would amount to an involuntary confession.[2]
- The Court must consider whether the suspect has an operating mind. The suspect is sufficiently aware of what he or she is saying and who they are saying it to.[3]
- The Court can consider the degree of police trickery. While trickery in general is allowed it cannot go so far as to "shocks the community".[4]
See also
Notes
External links
- Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision available at LexUM and CanLII