R. v. Reddemann

R. v. Reddemann

Police breached s.10(b) by failing to provide a reasonable second opportunity to consult counsel and by not giving the required Prosper warning; the challenged custodial statements were therefore obtained in breach of the Charter and must be excluded under s.24(2); the severance application is dismissed because the Crown's proposed similar fact evidence has a real prospect of admissibility and the interests of justice favour a joint trial (Crown already agreed to sever D.C. counts).

Citation
2016 BCSC 442
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: James Henry Reddemann
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal (indictment for Sexual Assault and Related Offences) / Pre Trial Voir Dire on Severance and Charter S.10(b) Exclusion Applications
Outcome
Charter s.10(b) breached; statements excluded under s.24(2); severance of counts relating to J.B. and T.D. denied; Crown's agreement to sever counts relating to D.C. to be implemented; publication ban maintained.
Legal Topics
Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel, Charter S.7 Right to Silence, Section 24(2) Exclusion Remedy, Severance of Counts S.591 Criminal Code, Similar Fact Evidence (handy/last), Prosper Warning, Voluntariness of Statements
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel Charter S.7 Right to Silence Section 24(2) Exclusion Remedy Severance of Counts S.591 Criminal Code Similar Fact Evidence (handy/last) +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

James Henry Reddemann

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (indictment for Sexual Assault and Related Offences) / Pre Trial Voir Dire on Severance and Charter S.10(b) Exclusion Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police fulfilled s.10(b) implementational duties and afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel
  2. 2 Whether accused was reasonably diligent in attempting further consultation
  3. 3 Whether accused unequivocally waived right to counsel or required a Prosper warning

Ratio Decidendi

Police breached s.10(b) by failing to provide a reasonable second opportunity to consult counsel and by not giving the required Prosper warning; the challenged custodial statements were therefore obtained in breach of the Charter and must be excluded under s.24(2); the severance application is dismissed because the Crown's proposed similar fact evidence has a real prospect of admissibility and the interests of justice favour a joint trial (Crown already agreed to sever D.C. counts).

Court Disposition

Charter s.10(b) breached; statements excluded under s.24(2); severance of counts relating to J.B. and T.D. denied; Crown's agreement to sever counts relating to D.C. to be implemented; publication ban maintained.

Orders

  • Publication ban ordered pursuant to Criminal Code s.486.4(1) prohibiting publication of contents of the ban application and any information that could identify the victim or a witness