R. v. Ingram

R. v. Ingram

The court excluded all three statements: the initial statement was found to have been elicited in breach of s.10(b) and therefore tainted subsequent interactions; the 5:07 a.m. cell statement was excluded as part of a chain of events tainted by the earlier s.10(b) breach; the formal interview was excluded because...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 BCSC 574
Parties
Crown: her majesty the queen; Accused: donald ingram
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Aggravated Assault / Voir Dire (admissibility Hearing/ruling)
Outcome
Voir dire ruling: all three statements of the accused excluded as inadmissible due to Charter breaches
Legal Topics
S.10(b) Right to Counsel, S.7 Right to Silence and Security of the Person, Voluntariness of Statements, Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2), Confessions Rule, Chain of Causation/taint
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law (charter) Police Procedure S.10(b) Right to Counsel S.7 Right to Silence and Security of the Person Voluntariness of Statements Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2) +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

her majesty the queen

Crown

donald ingram

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Aggravated Assault / Voir Dire (admissibility Hearing/ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether three statements made by the accused were voluntary and admissible
  2. 2 Whether the accused's s.10(b) right to counsel was breached
  3. 3 Whether the accused's s.7 right to silence was subverted (conscripted evidence)

Ratio Decidendi

The court excluded all three statements: the initial statement was found to have been elicited in breach of s.10(b) and therefore tainted subsequent interactions; the 5:07 a.m. cell statement was excluded as part of a chain of events tainted by the earlier s.10(b) breach; the formal interview was excluded because police conduct subverted the accused's s.7 and he was repeatedly denied effective exercise of s.10(b), producing conscripted evidence that must be excluded under s.24(2).

Court Disposition

Voir dire ruling: all three statements of the accused excluded as inadmissible due to Charter breaches

Orders

  • Exclude all three statements of the accused from evidence pursuant to s.24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.