Oickle Derivative: Language Barrier R. v. Poon and Wong (2006) B.C.S.C.
by Gino Arcaro B. Sc., M.Ed.

I. Introduction
The circumstances that can arise during an interrogation are limitless. It is impossible to list or predict every situation that can occur. Interrogations often include a blatant persuasion that influences the accused's decision to confess during a period of several hours. The question is whether the persuasion and the length of the interrogation are: (a) inducements, and (b) if so, do they automatically render the confession involuntary.

In reality, countless factors affect the instruction, invoking, and exercising of both right to counsel (RTC) and right to remain silent. One issue is comprehension of the English language. Another involves the countless circumstances of an investigation that may delay providing the accused an opportunity to call a lawyer. All delays must be justified. RTC delays are justified only if the delay constitutes "exceptional circumstances. There is no concrete definition of "exceptional circumstances," concrete reasons must be explained. A delay that does not constitute "exceptional circumstances" constitutes a sec. 10(b) Charter violation but there has to be a connection between the Charter violation and a confession. The question is, "What constitutes a connection?" Is every RTC violation automatically connected to a subsequent confession?

This lengthy, complex judgment by the British Columbia Supreme Court in R. v. Poon and Wong represents outstanding learning material because it includes an extensive case law review of the relevant rules of evidence pertaining to the admissibility of confessions. Additionally, it explains an Oickle derivative, a Hebert right to silence derivative, and a RTC derivative.