The Common Law Confessions Rule does not Extend to Statements Tendered in a Voir Dire under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The
Crown must prove the voluntariness of an accused’s statement before it can rely
upon that statement at trial as supporting a finding of guilt.
The
purpose of the judicial inquiry in a Charter voir dire is distinct from
the purpose of a criminal trial. A
criminal trial is concerned with determining whether the accused is guilty of
an offence. In a Charter voir dire, however, the focus is not on the
accused’s guilt, but on whether the accused’s constitutional rights were
infringed. A Charter voir dire therefore involves a review of the
totality of the circumstances known to, and relied upon by, the state actor at
the time of the impugned action.
Admitting
a statement by an accused for the purpose of assessing the constitutionality of
state action, as opposed to the purpose of determining the accused’s guilt,
does not engage the rationale for the confessions rule. To apply the rule to
evidence presented at a Charter voir dire would distort both the rule
and its rationale.
R. v.
Paterson, 2017 SCC 15, at para 21.
Comments
Post a Comment