R. v. Kelly

R. v. Kelly

The accused failed to meet the evidential threshold that he subjectively believed J.M. was a person in authority or acting for the police; threats to reputation or to publicize allegations do not convert a private individual into a person in authority; therefore neither the First nor the Second Confession was made...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 BCSC 711
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Charles Kelly
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Offences / Voir Dire (application to Exclude Confessions After Jury Selection)
Outcome
Application to exclude the two confessions dismissed; both confessions admitted into evidence.
Legal Topics
Confessions Rule, Person in Authority, Voluntariness, Voir Dire, Admissibility of Statements
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Law Confessions Rule Person in Authority Voluntariness Voir Dire Admissibility of Statements

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Charles Kelly

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offences / Voir Dire (application to Exclude Confessions After Jury Selection)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two out‑of‑court confessions to the complainant's mother are admissible
  2. 2 Whether J.M. was a "person in authority" within Hodgson such that the confessions attract the confessions rule
  3. 3 Whether the statements were made voluntarily and whether prejudicial effect outweighed probative value

Ratio Decidendi

The accused failed to meet the evidential threshold that he subjectively believed J.M. was a person in authority or acting for the police; threats to reputation or to publicize allegations do not convert a private individual into a person in authority; therefore neither the First nor the Second Confession was made to a person in authority and both confessions are admissible, with issues of reliability and prejudice left for the jury to assess.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude the two confessions dismissed; both confessions admitted into evidence.

Orders

  • First Confession admitted into evidence.
  • Second (taped) Confession admitted into evidence.