HMTQ v. Ellard

HMTQ v. Ellard

The Crown failed to discharge its onus to show compliance with s.56 of the Young Offenders Act and with Charter obligations; except for the initial field statement to Cst. Perkins, statements made after the accused was taken into custody (including the videotaped interview) were not voluntary and are inadmissible.

Citation
2000 BCSC 564
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Kelly Marie Ellard
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal (youth Young Offenders Act) / Voir Dire (admissibility of Statements)
Outcome
Voir dire ruling: initial field statement to Cst. Perkins admitted; all statements taken after the accused was taken into custody (including the videotaped interview and subsequent admissions) excluded as involuntary and obtained in breach of s.56 YOA and the Charter.
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, Voluntariness of Statements, Young Offenders Act S.56, Confession Admissibility, Police Conduct
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Youth Justice Constitutional Law Evidence Right to Counsel Voluntariness of Statements Young Offenders Act S.56 Confession Admissibility +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Kelly Marie Ellard

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (youth Young Offenders Act) / Voir Dire (admissibility of Statements)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Compliance with s.56 of the Young Offenders Act
  2. 2 Charter s.10(b) right to counsel and its application to detained youth
  3. 3 Whether statements were voluntary and thus admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to discharge its onus to show compliance with s.56 of the Young Offenders Act and with Charter obligations; except for the initial field statement to Cst. Perkins, statements made after the accused was taken into custody (including the videotaped interview) were not voluntary and are inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Voir dire ruling: initial field statement to Cst. Perkins admitted; all statements taken after the accused was taken into custody (including the videotaped interview and subsequent admissions) excluded as involuntary and obtained in breach of s.56 YOA and the Charter.

Orders

  • Admit statement made to Cst. Shannon Perkins at Shoreline School (evening of November 21, 1997) as evidence
  • Exclude all statements made after the accused was taken into custody on November 21, 1997, including the videotaped interview (approx. 9:20 p.m. to 2:30 a.m.), as inadmissible