R. v. Lincoln

R. v. Lincoln

Court found police words of direction and control during the July 21 hospital interview caused a reasonable detainee to feel not free to leave; s.10(b) was breached and, coupled with failure to complete the caution, the accused's s.7 right to silence was infringed so the July 21 statement was involuntary and excluded under s.24(2); statements to medical personnel were not police‑directed and are admissible; the July 23 interview with Cst. Craig was voluntary and admissible (accused repeatedly invoked legal advice and maintained silence); the July 24 interview involved sustained appeals to conscience, statements that the accused had an obligation to speak, and demands to justify silence...

Citation
2009 BCSC 385
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Charlie Rae Lincoln
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Second Degree Murder; Voir Dire on Admissibility of Statements / Voir Dire Ruling (pre Trial)
Outcome
Voir dire rulings on admissibility of statements: some statements excluded, some admitted
Legal Topics
Detention Under Ss.9 10 Charter, Right to Counsel S.10(b), Right to Silence and Voluntariness S.7, Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2), Tainting of Subsequent Statements, Police Interrogation Techniques, Admissibility of Jail/cell Utterances, Use of Police Agents
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Detention Under Ss.9 10 Charter Right to Counsel S.10(b) Right to Silence and Voluntariness S.7 Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2) Tainting of Subsequent Statements +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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Charlie Rae Lincoln

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Second Degree Murder; Voir Dire on Admissibility of Statements / Voir Dire Ruling (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the accused detained by police during the July 21, 2006 hospital interview?
  2. 2 If detained, was there a breach of s.10(b) right to counsel and did that trigger exclusion under s.24(2)?
  3. 3 Were the July 21, 23 and 24 statements voluntary under s.7 and common law?

Ratio Decidendi

Court found police words of direction and control during the July 21 hospital interview caused a reasonable detainee to feel not free to leave; s.10(b) was breached and, coupled with failure to complete the caution, the accused's s.7 right to silence was infringed so the July 21 statement was involuntary and excluded under s.24(2); statements to medical personnel were not police‑directed and are admissible; the July 23 interview with Cst. Craig was voluntary and admissible (accused repeatedly invoked legal advice and maintained silence); the July 24 interview involved sustained appeals to conscience, statements that the accused had an obligation to speak, and demands to justify silence...

Court Disposition

Voir dire rulings on admissibility of statements: some statements excluded, some admitted

Orders

  • July 21, 2006 hospital statement excluded from evidence (Charter s.10(b) breach; involuntary under s.7; excluded under s.24(2))
  • Statements made to doctors and medical personnel at the hospital admitted as voluntary and not Charter‑protected statements to police agents