logo

Canadian Criminal Law Assignment

   

Added on  2020-04-01

8 Pages1588 Words28 Views
Running head: INTERVIEWING RULES1Interviewing RulesStudent’s NameUniversity’s Name

INTERVIEWING RULES2ContentsAnswer 1..........................................................................................................................................3Answer 2..........................................................................................................................................3Answer 3..........................................................................................................................................4Answer 4..........................................................................................................................................4Answer 5..........................................................................................................................................5Answer 6..........................................................................................................................................6Answer 7..........................................................................................................................................6References........................................................................................................................................7

INTERVIEWING RULES3Answer 1Taking into consideration, the common law for crime confession in Canada, all the statements made to a “person in authority” are required to be proven voluntary to be considered as their admission for crime, which is also known as confession rule. In this context, the criteria regarding “person in authority” include peace officer, social worker, or the interpreters who assist the police during interrogation. The assessment of the person receiving the statement of confession as a “person in authority” can be determined on the basis of the reasonable perceptionof the accused regarding the role of that person in the criminal process as mentioned in 3rdparagraph of pg. 524 of the article[CITATION Ste09 \l 1033 ]. In this case, there has been an admission of a crime of stealing by a 16-year-old boy in front of his mother. Firstly, the boy is mature enough to understand the concept of ‘person in authority” being an accused of theft. He confessed in front of his mother that he had stolen a vehicle from a neighbor, which can be considered as his voluntary confession. Thus, his mother is not a “person in authority” but the admissibility of the boy should be considered as his voluntary statement. Answer 2In R. versus Rothman (1981), the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the confession will be considered as admissible despite the fact that an undercover police officer planned a trick to make the accused confess his crime. The reason is that the accused was unaware of the fact that he was disclosing the information in front of a “person in authority” (as mentioned in last paragraph of pg. 326 of the article)[ CITATION Smi12 \l 1033 ].

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Common Law for Crime Confession in Canada: Assignment
|8
|1863
|68

Is the boy's mother a Minor?
|4
|1341
|81

R vs. SMITH [2003] QCA 76; 138 A Crim R 172
|5
|962
|63

Introduction to Criminal Justice System
|4
|818
|484

Assignment on Legal System (Doc)
|8
|1997
|15

Resit Assignment Solution (Doc)
|15
|4846
|65