R. v. B.T.

R. v. B.T.

Because the officer who actually obtained the videotaped statement (and oversaw the re-enactment) did not personally and contemporaneously explain to the young person that he was under no obligation to make a statement and that any statement could be used in evidence, the statutory preconditions of YCJA s.146(2)(b)(i)-(ii) were not met and the statement and re-enactment are inadmissible; a prior explanation by a different officer hours earlier does not satisfy the requirement.

Citation
2012 NSPC 59
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused (young Person): T.(B.)
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Youth Criminal Prosecution (first Degree Murder) / Voir Dire on Admissibility at Close of Crown's Case (pre Trial)
Outcome
Videotaped statement of November 21, 2011 obtained from T.(B.) and the subsequent re-enactment are excluded as inadmissible.
Legal Topics
YCJA Section 146 Compliance, Admissibility of Statements, Right to Silence, Right to Counsel/consultation, Re Enactment Evidence, Voluntariness, Summary Determination/non Suit
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Youth Justice Evidence Law Charter Rights YCJA Section 146 Compliance Admissibility of Statements Right to Silence Right to Counsel/consultation +3 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown

T.(B.)

Accused (young Person)

Procedural Posture

Youth Criminal Prosecution (first Degree Murder) / Voir Dire on Admissibility at Close of Crown's Case (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.146(2)(b)(i) and (ii) YCJA were complied with by the officer who took the statement
  2. 2 Whether a prior recitation of rights by a different officer suffices for a later statement
  3. 3 Whether the admissibility issue could be decided summarily at the close of the Crown's case

Ratio Decidendi

Because the officer who actually obtained the videotaped statement (and oversaw the re-enactment) did not personally and contemporaneously explain to the young person that he was under no obligation to make a statement and that any statement could be used in evidence, the statutory preconditions of YCJA s.146(2)(b)(i)-(ii) were not met and the statement and re-enactment are inadmissible; a prior explanation by a different officer hours earlier does not satisfy the requirement.

Court Disposition

Videotaped statement of November 21, 2011 obtained from T.(B.) and the subsequent re-enactment are excluded as inadmissible.

Orders

  • The videotaped statement of November 21, 2011 is inadmissible and shall not be admitted at trial.
  • The re-enactment conducted following the statement is inadmissible and shall not be admitted at trial.