R. v. Garnier

R. v. Garnier

The third statement was excluded because the undercover officer was a state agent who, by exploiting the accused's detention, inexperience and fear and by prompting and coaxing him, causally induced inculpatory remarks; that conduct violated the detained accused's s.7 right to silence and was serious enough to justify exclusion under s.24(2).

Citation
2017 NSSC 340
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Christopher Garnier
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Homicide / Voir Dire / Pre Trial Admissibility Ruling
Outcome
Third statement (cell‑plant conversation of Sept 16, 2015 at 11:02 PM) ruled inadmissible and excluded from evidence
Legal Topics
Right to Silence, Cell Plant Operations, Voluntariness of Statements, Section 24(2) Exclusion, Derived Confessions Rule, Undercover Operations in Custody
Source Language
English
Charter Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Law Police Conduct Right to Silence Cell Plant Operations Voluntariness of Statements Section 24(2) Exclusion +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Christopher Garnier

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Homicide / Voir Dire / Pre Trial Admissibility Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third statement was obtained in violation of s.7 right to silence via a cell‑plant undercover operation
  2. 2 Whether the undercover operator was an agent of the state and whether the conversation amounted to elicitation
  3. 3 Whether evidence should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The third statement was excluded because the undercover officer was a state agent who, by exploiting the accused's detention, inexperience and fear and by prompting and coaxing him, causally induced inculpatory remarks; that conduct violated the detained accused's s.7 right to silence and was serious enough to justify exclusion under s.24(2).

Court Disposition

Third statement (cell‑plant conversation of Sept 16, 2015 at 11:02 PM) ruled inadmissible and excluded from evidence

Orders

  • Statement obtained from Mr. Garnier by undercover officer in cells on Sept 16, 2015 at 11:02 PM is excluded from the Crown's case