R. v. W.H.A.

R. v. W.H.A.

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the accused was informed of arrest reasons and rights, consulted duty counsel before the videotaped interview, and that both the spontaneous oral remark and the videotaped interview were made with operating mind and voluntarily; therefore there were no s.10(a) or s.10(b) breaches and the Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, so the statements are admissible.

Citation
2011 NSSC 157
Parties
Provincial Crown: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused: W. H. A.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault / Blended Voir Dire on Admissibility of Statements / Pre Trial Ruling
Outcome
No Charter breaches found; both oral and videotaped statements admissible
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel (s.10), Right to Be Informed of Reasons for Arrest (s.10(a)), Right to Silence (s.7), Voluntariness of Statements / Confessions Rule, Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2))
Source Language
English
Charter of Rights Criminal Law Evidence Right to Counsel (s.10) Right to Be Informed of Reasons for Arrest (s.10(a)) Right to Silence (s.7) Voluntariness of Statements / Confessions Rule Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2))

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Provincial Crown

W. H. A.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Blended Voir Dire on Admissibility of Statements / Pre Trial Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.10(a) and s.10(b) Charter rights were breached
  2. 2 Whether accused consulted duty counsel before the videotaped statement
  3. 3 Whether the oral and videotaped statements were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the accused was informed of arrest reasons and rights, consulted duty counsel before the videotaped interview, and that both the spontaneous oral remark and the videotaped interview were made with operating mind and voluntarily; therefore there were no s.10(a) or s.10(b) breaches and the Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, so the statements are admissible.

Court Disposition

No Charter breaches found; both oral and videotaped statements admissible

Orders

  • Oral spontaneous statement and videotaped statement of the accused are admissible at trial