R. v. L.H.

R. v. L.H.

The videotaped statement was voluntary, but the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the s.146 requirements were met because the officer merely read the waiver quickly, did not assess or document the youth's ability to read or understand, did not test comprehension (eg. have the youth explain rights in his own words), and thus could not establish that the youth fully understood the rights and consequences of waiving them; therefore the statement is inadmissible.

Citation
2005 NSPC 36
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Young Person: L.H.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Youth Criminal Proceeding Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Videotaped Statement (decision)
Outcome
Videotaped statement ruled inadmissible; Crown failed to prove compliance with s.146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Legal Topics
Voluntariness of Statement, Youth Criminal Justice Act S.146, Waiver of Rights, Confessions Rule, Admissibility of Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Youth Justice Evidence Voluntariness of Statement Youth Criminal Justice Act S.146 Waiver of Rights Confessions Rule Admissibility of Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

L.H.

Young Person

Procedural Posture

Youth Criminal Proceeding Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Videotaped Statement (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the videotaped statement was voluntary under common law
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of s.146(2) and s.146(4) of the YCJA were satisfied (clear explanation of rights, opportunity to consult counsel/parent/adult, valid recorded waiver)
  3. 3 Whether the officer took reasonable steps to ensure the youth understood rights given alleged learning disability

Ratio Decidendi

The videotaped statement was voluntary, but the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the s.146 requirements were met because the officer merely read the waiver quickly, did not assess or document the youth's ability to read or understand, did not test comprehension (eg. have the youth explain rights in his own words), and thus could not establish that the youth fully understood the rights and consequences of waiving them; therefore the statement is inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Videotaped statement ruled inadmissible; Crown failed to prove compliance with s.146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Orders

  • Videotaped statement of L.H. dated August 8, 2004 is excluded from evidence as inadmissible under s.146 YCJA
  • Publication restriction preserved pursuant to sections 110 and 111 of the YCJA