R. v. Isenor

R. v. Isenor

Judge found police entry to arrest occurred inside the home and thus constituted a s.8 Feeney breach, but that the unlawful arrest was not temporally or causally connected to the April 30 videotaped statement so s.24(2) exclusion was not warranted; on the evidence both the April 30 and May 18 statements were voluntary and admissible because no threats, promises, oppression or police trickery over-rode the accused's operating mind or right to silence.

Citation
2007 NSPC 36
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Brett Isenor
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal (manslaughter) / Voir Dire — Admissibility of Statements (pre Trial)
Outcome
Voir dire decision: unlawful s.8 arrest found (entry into residence) but both April 30 and May 18 videotaped statements admitted as voluntary; s.24(2) exclusion refused.
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure (s.8), Feeney Warrant / Warrantless Entry, Hot Pursuit and Exigent Circumstances, Voluntariness of Statements / Confessions, Right to Silence and Right to Counsel (s.10(b)), Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Police Record‑keeping and Recording Interviews
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Rights Evidence Search and Seizure (s.8) Feeney Warrant / Warrantless Entry Hot Pursuit and Exigent Circumstances Voluntariness of Statements / Confessions Right to Silence and Right to Counsel (s.10(b)) +2 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Brett Isenor

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (manslaughter) / Voir Dire — Admissibility of Statements (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether arrest was lawfully effected inside the accused's home (section 8 Charter issue)
  2. 2 Whether April 30 statement was causally or temporally connected to any Charter breach such that s.24(2) exclusion is required
  3. 3 Whether April 30 and May 18 statements were voluntary and admissible

Ratio Decidendi

Judge found police entry to arrest occurred inside the home and thus constituted a s.8 Feeney breach, but that the unlawful arrest was not temporally or causally connected to the April 30 videotaped statement so s.24(2) exclusion was not warranted; on the evidence both the April 30 and May 18 statements were voluntary and admissible because no threats, promises, oppression or police trickery over-rode the accused's operating mind or right to silence.

Court Disposition

Voir dire decision: unlawful s.8 arrest found (entry into residence) but both April 30 and May 18 videotaped statements admitted as voluntary; s.24(2) exclusion refused.

Orders

  • April 30, 2006 videotaped statement of Brett Isenor admitted into evidence at trial
  • May 18, 2006 videotaped statement of Brett Isenor admitted into evidence at trial