R. v. Chen

R. v. Chen

Judge found on the balance of probabilities that the officer probably told the accused the file could be closed if she provided her side; that statement was a contributing and powerful inducement given her immigration status and custody concerns; Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt; consequently the recorded statement was inadmissible and the subsequent emails were contaminated and therefore inadmissible under the derived confessions rule.

Citation
2023 NSPC 64
Parties
Crown: His Majesty the King; Accused: Dan Chen
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Admissibility of Statement / Pre Trial Admissibility Hearing (voir Dire)
Outcome
Recorded statement and subsequent emails excluded as inadmissible evidence
Legal Topics
Voluntariness of Confession, Derived Confessions Rule, Inducement/hope of Advantage, Restorative Justice, Right to Counsel
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedural Law Voluntariness of Confession Derived Confessions Rule Inducement/hope of Advantage Restorative Justice Right to Counsel

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown

Dan Chen

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Admissibility of Statement / Pre Trial Admissibility Hearing (voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the investigating officer made an offer to close the file if the accused provided her side of the story
  2. 2 Whether any such offer was a sufficient inducement to render the recorded statement involuntary
  3. 3 Whether subsequent emails were contaminated by the recorded statement under the derived confessions rule

Ratio Decidendi

Judge found on the balance of probabilities that the officer probably told the accused the file could be closed if she provided her side; that statement was a contributing and powerful inducement given her immigration status and custody concerns; Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt; consequently the recorded statement was inadmissible and the subsequent emails were contaminated and therefore inadmissible under the derived confessions rule.

Court Disposition

Recorded statement and subsequent emails excluded as inadmissible evidence

Orders

  • Recorded video statement of Dan Chen dated February 24, 2021 is inadmissible and excluded from trial.
  • Emails and correspondence from Dan Chen to D/Cst. Buell dated February 25, 26, 27 and March 4, 2021 are inadmissible and excluded from trial.