R. v. Menard

R. v. Menard

The court found no breach of s.10(a) or s.10(b): arresting officers properly informed the accused of the reason for arrest and his right to counsel and facilitated contact with legal aid and local counsel; the temporary refusal to allow immediate spousal contact was justified by legitimate investigative concerns and did not deny a reasonable opportunity to seek counsel. On voluntariness, applying Oickle and related authorities the court concluded the interviews contained no threats, promises or oppressive conduct sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on voluntariness and therefore the Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. Certain categories of material were nevertheless...

Citation
2007 BCSC 1847
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Ronald Kenneth Menard
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal First Degree Murder / Voir Dire on Voluntariness of Statements and Alleged Charter S.10 Breaches (pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling)
Outcome
Voir dire dismissed in favour of the Crown; statements admitted subject to editing
Legal Topics
Charter S.10 Rights (right to Be Informed and to Counsel), Right to Counsel/brydges Line, Voluntariness of Statements, S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Undercover Operations, Editing/prejudicial Evidence, Voir Dire Procedure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Charter S.10 Rights (right to Be Informed and to Counsel) Right to Counsel/brydges Line Voluntariness of Statements S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Undercover Operations +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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Ronald Kenneth Menard

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal First Degree Murder / Voir Dire on Voluntariness of Statements and Alleged Charter S.10 Breaches (pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.10(a) right to be informed of reasons for arrest was breached
  2. 2 Whether s.10(b) right to retain and instruct counsel without delay was breached (including right to third‑party assistance)
  3. 3 Whether statements made to police were voluntary

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no breach of s.10(a) or s.10(b): arresting officers properly informed the accused of the reason for arrest and his right to counsel and facilitated contact with legal aid and local counsel; the temporary refusal to allow immediate spousal contact was justified by legitimate investigative concerns and did not deny a reasonable opportunity to seek counsel. On voluntariness, applying Oickle and related authorities the court concluded the interviews contained no threats, promises or oppressive conduct sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on voluntariness and therefore the Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. Certain categories of material were nevertheless...

Court Disposition

Voir dire dismissed in favour of the Crown; statements admitted subject to editing

Orders

  • Statements admitted as evidence subject to deletion of specified prejudicial material
  • Delete references to historical sexual matters from all statements