12 Jun 1980
Because the Crown failed to call the sufficiently identified police officer to rebut the appellant's allegation of threats, the court was not satisfied that the verbal and written confessions were voluntary; both should have been excluded and, absent them, the conviction could not be sustained and was quashed.
10 Oct 1979
Where the defence does not allege impropriety for any particular period before a cautioned statement is taken, the Crown is not required to account for every moment between arrest and statement; a judge may admit the statement if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was made voluntarily (the judge accepted the police account that the statement was made at 14:30 and not at 18:00).
11 Jun 1968
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge did not err in admitting the challenged statements (the Crown discharged the burden to show they were voluntary), the identification evidence (victim IDs plus recovered watches) was reliable and corroborative, and the application to admit fresh evidence and to call the appellant to give oral evidence on appeal was rightly refused as not meeting the high threshold for new evidence and because the post‑conviction letter was self‑serving and the appellant's evidence was effectively available at trial; therefore convictions and concurrent sentences…
Breaches of the Judges' Rules do not automatically exclude a statement; the decisive question is voluntariness which the trial judge was entitled to find had been established beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence presented; where an accused objects to voluntariness on facts occurring during unaccounted custodial periods the defence must give reasonable particulars or the court may infer absence of inducement; the judge did not err in admitting the statement or in considering its probative value in light of statutory presumptions and therefore leave to appeal was refused and convictions/sent…