''R v Oickle'', 2000 SCC 38 is a leading case decided by the
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; , ) is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants eac ...
on the
common law
Common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law primarily developed through judicial decisions rather than statutes. Although common law may incorporate certain statutes, it is largely based on prece ...
rule for
confession
A confession is a statement – made by a person or by a group of people – acknowledging some personal fact that the person (or the group) would ostensibly prefer to keep hidden. The term presumes that the speaker is providing information that ...
s. Though the ''
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' (), often simply referred to as the ''Charter'' in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the '' Constitution Act, 1982''. The ''Char ...
'' ("''Charter''") remains in force for confessions made while in custody, the common law rule still applies in all circumstances. The majority outlined factors to determine whether a confession is voluntary.
Background
Richard Oickle was under investigation by police for a series of fires. He voluntarily underwent a
polygraph
A polygraph, often incorrectly referred to as a lie detector test, is a pseudoscientific device or procedure that measures and records several physiological indicators such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while a ...
test. The police told him he had failed and began to question him. He eventually confessed to starting the fires. Oickle was told he was under arrest and brought to the police station for further questioning. He was put in a cell near 3am, around nine hours after his confession. The police talked to him again at 6am asking him to provide a re-enactment, which he did.
At trial, he was convicted of arson. The Court of Appeal found that the confession was inadmissible and overturned the conviction. After review by the Supreme Court of Canada, Iacobucci J, writing for the majority, found the confession was admissible.
Reasons of the court
Iacobucci J, writing for the majority, found that the confession was admissible. He stated the factors that should be used to determine whether a confession is voluntary:
#The Court must consider whether the police made any threats or promises. Iacobucci states that whether there is a ''
quid pro quo
''Quid pro quo'' (Latin: "something for something") is a Latin phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favor for a favor". Phrases with similar meanings include: " ...
'' for the confession will usually determine whether it was voluntary.
#The Court must look for oppression. That is, where there is distasteful or inhumane conduct that would amount to an involuntary confession.
#The Court must consider whether the suspect has an operating mind. The suspect is sufficiently aware of what he or she is saying and who they are saying it to.
#The Court can consider the degree of police trickery. While trickery in general is allowed it cannot go so far as to "shock the community".
[paras. 65-67]
See also
*
List of Supreme Court of Canada cases
The Supreme Court of Canada is the court of last resort and final appeal in Canada. Cases successfully appealed to the Court are generally of national importance. Once a case is decided, the Court publishes written reasons for the decision, that ...
* ''
R v Buhay''
*''
R v Sinclair''
Notes
External links
*
{{DEFAULTSORT:Oickle
Canadian evidence case law
Supreme Court of Canada cases
2000 in Canadian case law
Canadian criminal case law