R. v. Caza

R. v. Caza

The court found the accused's afternoon comments and the evening audio‑video interview were voluntary; there was no breach of s.10(a); s.10(b) rights were not infringed because the police did not deny the accused a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel of choice nor materially override his choice; there was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCSC 482
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: David James Caza
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (admissibility)
Outcome
Application to exclude statements dismissed; audio‑video statement admissible
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel (s.10), Voluntariness of Statements/confessions, Section 24(2) Exclusion, Choice of Counsel, Change of Jeopardy, Police Conduct and Use of Fabricated Evidence
Source Language
english
Charter of Rights and Freedoms Evidence Criminal Law Right to Counsel (s.10) Voluntariness of Statements/confessions Section 24(2) Exclusion Choice of Counsel Change of Jeopardy +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

David James Caza

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (admissibility)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements were voluntary under the confessions rule
  2. 2 Whether police conduct interfered with the accused's s.10(b) right to retain and instruct counsel of choice
  3. 3 Whether a change of jeopardy occurred that required re-warning and fresh access to counsel

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the accused's afternoon comments and the evening audio‑video interview were voluntary; there was no breach of s.10(a); s.10(b) rights were not infringed because the police did not deny the accused a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel of choice nor materially override his choice; there was no significant change of jeopardy requiring a re‑warning; and even if a minor infringement occurred exclusion under s.24(2) was not justified, so the application to exclude the statements was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude statements dismissed; audio‑video statement admissible

Orders

  • Application to exclude the audio‑video statement dismissed
  • Statements and related evidence ruled voluntary and admissible for trial