This assignment delves into the intricacies of interviewing rules within the Canadian legal system, focusing on the admissibility of confessions. It examines the confession rule, which mandates that statements made to a "person in authority" must be proven voluntary to be admissible. The assignment analyzes several scenarios, including a 16-year-old's confession to his mother, the use of undercover police officers, and the impact of the right to remain silent under the Charter. It also explores situations where police questioning continues after a suspect has invoked their right to counsel, and cases involving deception or incomplete information provided by investigators. Furthermore, the assignment addresses the specific requirements for interviewing minors, including parental notification and presence. References to relevant case law, such as R. v. Rothman and R. v. Osmar, are included to illustrate the application of these legal principles. The assignment highlights the importance of police cautions, the voluntariness of confessions, and the protection of the accused's rights under the Charter.
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
![University Law Case Study: R vs. Smith [2003] QCA 76](/_next/image/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdesklib.com%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Fci%2F394dee3982ef454f9e4a28ed0b06d045.jpg&w=256&q=75)
