Case Study: Canadian Criminal Law on Interrogation and Confessions

This case study analyzes the admissibility of confessions and evidence within the framework of Canadian criminal law. It examines the roles and obligations of individuals in authority, such as the boy's mother, regarding reporting potential offenses. The analysis delves into the validity of evidence, including the admissibility of statements and the requirements for corroboration. The study explores the limits of interrogation, the right to remain silent, and the legality of police interrogation tactics, including trickery. It also assesses the admissibility of confessions based on voluntariness and the suspect's understanding of their rights, including the right to counsel. The case study examines the legal implications of confessions made with and without the presence of a lawyer, and the impact of police trickery on the admissibility of confessions in court. Finally, the study underscores the importance of documented evidence and the validity of statements in legal proceedings.

1. Yes, the boy’s mother would be classified as a person in Authority due to the boy being
16 years of age thus classifying him as a minor (Canada J. o., 1998). This would make it
his mother’s moral and legal obligation to raise the concern as it would have admissibility
of the boy’s statement. Failure to highlight the concern would lead to the mother also
being classified as guilty of the offense if proven in court. In this situation, the boy’s
mother is obligated to reporting the matter to the authorities which would deliver a better
chance of protecting the minor from charges as opposed to hiding the offense. Failing to
report the incident would classify the mother as an aider to the incident and likely to
attract legal proceeding against her as well.
2. Vair Dire is only considered as evidence if there is supporting evidence to prove the
conversation took place and is directly linked to the incident. The police officer may be
able to testify in court regarding the information he overheard while sleeping in the next
cell but this information can only be classified as valid if there is additional evidence
proving the discussion took place. In addition to this, the evidence would also need to
point directly to the incident and pinpoint specific details which can be investigated and
counter checked to determine if the information is true (Website, 1985). Without
documented evidence of the conversation and specific details related to the incidence if
would only be classified as word of mouth and his word against theirs. In such situation,
the evidence would require being backed up with documented proof in form of audio and
video recording which can be used to verify the police officers evidence.
3. Every suspect has the right to remain silent but the law does not specify how long the
interrogation can continue. The main limitation to an interrogation is linked to forceful
confession through torture but simple interrogation can continue. The police have the
jurisdiction to continue interviewing a suspect using difference approached and strategies
with the hope of extracting important information (Line, 2017). But it is also important to
respect the suspect’s human rights and refrain or withdraw from investigations and
interrogation when he requested for his right to remain silent. The interrogation should

them withdraw and resume later or with a different officer who may be able to extract
additional information. The durations a suspect is held in custody depend on the crime
the individual is accused of and the more serious the case the longer interrogations and
their severity can be done. Interrogation laws do no limit the time an individual can be
interrogated repeatedly as interactions tend to extract information over time.
Interrogations must never utilize torture and harm the suspect as this is against the
Canadian interviewing rules and laws and can be used by the suspect again the force and
police if proven. Information must be extracted in a human way and volunteerism by the
suspect (Yosowich, 2017)t.
4. Yes, the confession will be admissible in court due to being a sighed document which the
suspect has volunteers to make (Stewart, The Confessions Rule and the Charter, 2009).
The police had asked the suspect on several occasions regarding his right to consult with
lawyer and counsel but he did not take up this opportunity to call his legal advisor or
layer. He also did not request for counsel to aid him and opted to confess regarding the
incident. According to the Canadian Criminal Evidence/Admissions and confessions/
Voluntariness law, the police must inform the suspect of his right to consult lawyers for
advice but also have the power to utilize Police Trickery tactics to extract information
from the suspect (Jedlinsk, 2007). This can take place in the following forms
• pretending to be a pretending to be a chaplain or legal aid, lawyer
• using truth serum under the pretence that it is insulin
• Pretending to turn off a tape recorder when taking a statement
These strategies are allowed during interrogations with the sole objective of extracting
information from the suspect and enforcing the law. They are only permitted to ensure
the law is enforced and guilty suspects held responsible for their crimes. They also help
identify genuine pleas by suspects who may genuinely not be guilty of any crime and
being held for interrogation.

5. A confession is valid in court as evidence as long as the suspect has made the confession
willingly and not under any influence of pressure. The police office had informed the
women regarding her right to remain silent but had not discussed the cautions related to
discussing the case with the officer which could result legal action being taken against
her. She still opted to make the confession volunteer thus this confession of valid in court
and can be used as evidence against her (Stewart, The Confessions Rule and the Charter,
2009). Cautioning involves informing the suspect regarding the consequences of discing
any details or making a commission to the police without lawyers could be used against
her and in court as evidence but still applies and can be used if not mentioned to the
suspect.
6. Yes as this falls under the Police Trickery jurisdiction, this allows police to use trickery
to encourage the suspect to make confessions related to a suspected incident which may
have occurred. As long as the suspect has made the confession without any pressure or
torture the confession shall be classified as valid and credible in court (Law, 2009).
Canadian law allows for police to use such strategies to extract information from suspects
with the intention of upholding law and if a confession is made it is valid in court.
7. Any statements made an office must be clearly documented so as to be valid in court as
evidence. Word of mouth can now be considered as valid unless the officer has
documented the statement of any incriminating statement. Any information or admittance
towards having committed or having participated in a crime can be help and used as
evidence against a suspect as long as their being documented evidence of the statement
(Canada G. A., 2017). The age is a different factor which will require to be evaluated
since the suspect would be classified as a juvenile but the value of evidence collected will
remain valid for all suspects despite of their age or crime committed.

References
Canada, G. A. (2017). Rights of the Accused. Global Affairs Canada.
Canada, J. o. (1998). R. v. Hodgson. Supreme Court Judgments.
Jedlinsk, N. (2007). THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN SECTION 7 OF THE CHARTER AND VOLUNTARINESS (THE
CONFESSIONS RULE) AFTER R v SINGH. Criminal Appeals and Special Prosecutions Vancouver,
B.C. .
Law, C. (2009). POLICE TRICKERY IN INDUCING CONFESSIONS. canadian Law Forum.
Line, L. (2017). The right to remain silent. Legal Line Canada.
Stewart, H. (2009). The Confessions Rule and the Charter. Hamish Stewart.
Stewart, H. (2009). The Confessions Rule and the Charter. MCGILL LAW JOURNAL / REVUE DE DROIT DE
MCGILL.
Website, J. L. (1985). Canada Evidence Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-5). Government of Canada.
Yosowich, M. (2017). The right to remain silent upon detention. Find Law Canada.