The 24-Hour Clock: The relationship between sec.503 C.C. and the duration of an interrogation. Part 2

By Gino Arcaro M.Ed., B.Sc.

I. The Changing Boundaries

Imagine playing on a football field with changing boundaries. There are sidelines and end zones but they move. Often, they change form game to game. In some cases, the sideline gets closer. In others it gets further away. There are lines on the field but you can't actually see them. They are not painted on. Often, you have to guess what is in-bounds and what is out-of-bounds. And the goal posts move.

Interrogating a suspect is much like the "changing boundaries" scenario. The line between voluntary and involuntary confessions often gets blurred. This creates an investigative paradox: the absence of discernible boundaries creates considerable strategic latitude. The police do not have to walk on eggshells, worrying about every word they say during questioning, especially during the questioning of a murder suspect. Obviously, limits are imposed and a balance has to be achieved. But, the field does not always tilt against the police R. v. Ansari (2008) is an excellent example of the changing field. This case involved:

i. Three separate statements made by a murder suspect during three interrogations involving three different officers each with a different questioning strategy/approach;

ii. Questioning styles ranging from passive/friendly to aggressive/"berating" that included substantial persuasion to try to change the suspect's mind about his right to silence;

iii. The complexities of a major crime investigation including the reality of the "24-hour clock" imposed by bail hearing laws governed by sec. 515 Criminal Code.