R. v. Blackmore

R. v. Blackmore

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Oler's statements and conduct on October 5, 2005 and January 26, 2006 were voluntary and admissible: he was not detained, had an operating mind, there were no threats, promises, oppression or trickery, the absence of a caution and lack of recording were contextual...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 BCSC 2682
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Winston Kay Blackmore; Accused: James Marion Oler
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal (polygamy/sexual Exploitation) / Voir Dire (voluntariness)
Outcome
Admissions and conduct of James Marion Oler on October 5, 2005 and January 26, 2006 found voluntary and admissible
Legal Topics
Confessions Rule, Voluntariness, Right to Silence, Police Questioning, Recording of Interviews, Admissibility of Statements
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Procedural Law Confessions Rule Voluntariness Right to Silence Police Questioning Recording of Interviews +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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Winston Kay Blackmore

Accused

James Marion Oler

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (polygamy/sexual Exploitation) / Voir Dire (voluntariness)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements and conduct of James Marion Oler on October 5, 2005 and January 26, 2006 were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether absence of a police caution vitiates voluntariness in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether police conduct involved threats, promises, oppression or impermissible trickery

Ratio Decidendi

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Oler's statements and conduct on October 5, 2005 and January 26, 2006 were voluntary and admissible: he was not detained, had an operating mind, there were no threats, promises, oppression or trickery, the absence of a caution and lack of recording were contextual factors that did not, on the evidence, vitiate voluntariness, and Oler controlled the production of the women and had time and notice to consider the request.

Court Disposition

Admissions and conduct of James Marion Oler on October 5, 2005 and January 26, 2006 found voluntary and admissible

Orders

  • Admissions by Mr. Oler on October 5, 2005 and January 26, 2006 are admissible in evidence