R. v. S.R.D.H.

R. v. S.R.D.H.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the informational requirements of s.146(2)(b)(iii) and (iv) were clearly explained in language appropriate to the youth and that she was given a reasonable opportunity under s.146(2)(c) and (d) to consult and to have her grandmother present; any purported waiver was invalid; the deficiencies were substantive (not merely technical) and admission would bring the principle of enhanced youth protections into disrepute, therefore the statement is inadmissible despite being made voluntarily.

Citation
2009 NSSC 223
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/defendant (youth): S. R. D. H.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal (youth) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Statement (pre Trial)
Outcome
The statement of the accused is inadmissible and excluded from evidence under s.146 YCJA.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Statement, Section 146 YCJA Compliance, Voluntariness of Confession, Waiver of Statutory Rights, Right to Counsel, Right to Consult/availability of Adult Relative, Enhanced Procedural Protections for Youth
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Youth Criminal Justice Evidence Admissibility of Statement Section 146 YCJA Compliance Voluntariness of Confession Waiver of Statutory Rights Right to Counsel +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

S. R. D. H.

Accused/defendant (youth)

Procedural Posture

Criminal (youth) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Statement (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police complied with s.146(2)(b),(c),(d) YCJA when taking statement from a 17‑year‑old; whether accused was given a reasonable opportunity to consult an adult relative and to have that adult present; whether any waiver of those rights was valid; whether the statement was voluntary

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the informational requirements of s.146(2)(b)(iii) and (iv) were clearly explained in language appropriate to the youth and that she was given a reasonable opportunity under s.146(2)(c) and (d) to consult and to have her grandmother present; any purported waiver was invalid; the deficiencies were substantive (not merely technical) and admission would bring the principle of enhanced youth protections into disrepute, therefore the statement is inadmissible despite being made voluntarily.

Court Disposition

The statement of the accused is inadmissible and excluded from evidence under s.146 YCJA.

Orders

  • Statement of S. R. D. H. ruled inadmissible and excluded from the trial record.