NCJ Number
212425
Journal
IALEIA Journal Volume: 16 Issue: 2 Dated: Spring 2005 Pages: 167-206
Date Published
2005
Length
40 pages
Annotation
This article reviews Canadian rules and court decisions that pertain to the use of video/audio recordings of police interrogations; Canada's policy in this regard is compared with that of some other countries.
Abstract
As a general rule, a confession will not be admissible as evidence in a Canadian court if there is reasonable doubt about its voluntariness. In order to ensure that the issue of voluntariness can be adequately addressed when a defendant's alleged confession is being considered for admissibility, Canadian case law has evolved to favor videotaping police interrogations of suspects. In 2000, Canada's Supreme Court readdressed the confession rule in R v. Oickle. The Court identified the relevant factors for determining whether or not defendant statements would be considered voluntary. It indicated that voluntariness is questionable when interrogations involve threats or promises; oppressive conditions; the defendant's lack of awareness that a confession, with attendant detrimental consequences, is being made; and the use of police "trickery" that is sufficiently appalling to shock the public. The Court also stated that the judgment of the trier of fact regarding these issues related to a confession's voluntariness can be greatly assisted by a videotape of the police interrogation that was the context for the confession. Subsequent to "Oickle," the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Moore-McFarlane held that as long as recording equipment is available, the failure to record an interrogation will generally preclude a finding of voluntariness, except in the circumstance in which the police officer did not intend to interrogate the suspect. A comparison of the Canadian evolution of policy regarding taped confessions in an international context addresses policies in Great Britain, Australia, Hong Kong, and the United States. 22 references