R. v. R.F.S.

R. v. R.F.S.

The trial judge found a substantive breach of s.10(b) because the polygrapher discouraged and misled the accused in the pre-detention phase, depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to consult counsel and preventing an informed waiver; consequently the video statement and subsequent written statement were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2003 NSSC 40
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: R. F. S.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (pre Trial Admissibility Hearing)
Outcome
Voir dire found a breach of s.10(b); evidence excluded.
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel (s.10(b)), Admissibility of Statements, Detention, Voluntariness, Polygraph Interview
Source Language
english
Charter Rights Criminal Law Evidence Right to Counsel (s.10(b)) Admissibility of Statements Detention Voluntariness Polygraph Interview

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

R. F. S.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (pre Trial Admissibility Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a breach of the accused's s.10(b) right to counsel
  2. 2 Whether the accused validly and informedly waived the right to counsel
  3. 3 Whether statements obtained after the alleged breach are admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge found a substantive breach of s.10(b) because the polygrapher discouraged and misled the accused in the pre-detention phase, depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to consult counsel and preventing an informed waiver; consequently the video statement and subsequent written statement were inadmissible as they would render the trial unfair.

Court Disposition

Voir dire found a breach of s.10(b); evidence excluded.

Orders

  • Video recorded statement inadmissible and excluded from evidence.
  • Subsequent written statement taken by Constable Mombourquette inadmissible and excluded from evidence.