R. v. Watts

R. v. Watts

On the contextual analysis required by the confessions rule, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that both videotaped statements were voluntary: the police conduct (moral exhortation, measured persistence, and some exaggeration of video evidence) did not amount to oppressive or overbearing conduct nor to an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2003 BCSC 1403
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: John Andrew Watts
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal (arson) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Statements (pre Trial)
Outcome
Voir dire allowed; both videotaped statements admitted as voluntary and therefore admissible.
Legal Topics
Confessions, Voluntariness of Statements, Right to Counsel, Right to Silence, Police Fabrication, Voir Dire Admissibility
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Charter Rights Confessions Voluntariness of Statements Right to Counsel Right to Silence Police Fabrication +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

John Andrew Watts

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (arson) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Statements (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the videotaped statements were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether police conduct (including moral inducements, persistence after advice to remain silent, and fabricated evidence) overbore the accused's will
  3. 3 Whether the second statement was tainted by the first

Ratio Decidendi

On the contextual analysis required by the confessions rule, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that both videotaped statements were voluntary: the police conduct (moral exhortation, measured persistence, and some exaggeration of video evidence) did not amount to oppressive or overbearing conduct nor to an improper inducement, and the second interview was not tainted by the first; accordingly both videotaped statements are admissible.

Court Disposition

Voir dire allowed; both videotaped statements admitted as voluntary and therefore admissible.

Orders

  • Both videotaped statements admitted into evidence as voluntary