Reid Institute Members - The new Canadian Column is available on the Members What's New page - it is entitled, "Obtaining a confession "no matter what" after right to silence invoked, may be acceptable."
Written By:
Reid
Nov 17, 2007
R. v. Singh (2007)[1] S.C.C. - Right to Silence Part 2
By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M Ed.
I. Summary
The bold strategy of obtaining a confession from a murder suspect, "no matter what," may be acceptable even if it requires persistence that ignores and changes the suspect's intention to remain silent, as long as the police conduct does not negate the suspect's ability to exercise his free will.br>
On Thursday, November 1, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada made a landmark ruling that significantly expands police interrogation strategy. The SCC upheld the 2002 second-degree murder conviction of a person who shot an innocent bystander. The primary issue before the court was determining the extent of police persistence that may be used to obtain a confession, when an accused repeatedly invokes his right to remain silent.br>
The case, R. v. Singh, deals with a homicide investigation that began when a bystander was shot through the open door of the bar by the accused after the accused had been kicked out for fighting. During interrogation, the accused repeatedly invoked the right to silence, telling the detective that he did not want to answer questions. The detective persisted. The accused changed his mind and made certain statements.
Continue Reading
By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M Ed.
I. Summary
The bold strategy of obtaining a confession from a murder suspect, "no matter what," may be acceptable even if it requires persistence that ignores and changes the suspect's intention to remain silent, as long as the police conduct does not negate the suspect's ability to exercise his free will.br>
On Thursday, November 1, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada made a landmark ruling that significantly expands police interrogation strategy. The SCC upheld the 2002 second-degree murder conviction of a person who shot an innocent bystander. The primary issue before the court was determining the extent of police persistence that may be used to obtain a confession, when an accused repeatedly invokes his right to remain silent.br>
The case, R. v. Singh, deals with a homicide investigation that began when a bystander was shot through the open door of the bar by the accused after the accused had been kicked out for fighting. During interrogation, the accused repeatedly invoked the right to silence, telling the detective that he did not want to answer questions. The detective persisted. The accused changed his mind and made certain statements.