Class Notes (923,486)
CA (543,255)
UTSG (45,890)
WDW (315)
WDW101Y1 (300)
Lecture

March 10 Lecture

4 Pages
119 Views

Department
Woodsworth College Courses
Course Code
WDW101Y1
Professor
William Watson

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full 4 pages of the document.
WDW325 March 10, 2011 InterrogationsLecture 8
Common law and Charter restrictions on Interrogations
Common law must be voluntary; not the product of threat or inducement
Charter must comply with s.10(b) and 7
-must advise of right to counsel
-must provide opportunity to contact counsel
-must stop questioning for reasonable period to allow counsel
-must respect right against self-incrimination, right to remain silent
Purpose of Interrogations
Broadly exercise in persuasion influence subject to see the world in a particular way and to make
decision according to that view (i.e. make decision to disclose information/confess)
Step 1: set the stage create sense of powerlessness
Step 2: create sense of hopelessness
Step 3: motivate suspect to comply/speak
Purpose of Interrogation Rules
Balance police interests against suspect interests
-effective policing
-powerful evidence
-right to be left alone
-protects against false confessions
-confession rule puts limits on how police can interrogate people
RULE: crown must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that a confession is voluntary
Voluntariness
R. v. Oickle (SCC 2000)
FACTS: arson case of car fires; polygraph test, told the polygraph results are inadmissible but answers
may be admissible, advised of right to counsel and right to silence; advised he failed, questioned further,
confessed and eventually provided a re-enactment
ISSUE: was the statement voluntary?
TEST: to be voluntary, confession must be
a) Made in circumstances free of threats or promises; the police will have to somehow convince the
suspect that it is his or her best interests to confess; becomes improper only when the inducements
are strong enough to raise a reasonable doubt about whether the will of the subject has been
overborne
b) Made in circumstances free from oppression; depriving the suspect of food, clothing, water, sleep or
medical attention; excessively aggressive, intimidating question
c) Made in circumstances free from undue police trickery; confronting the suspect with inadmissible
or even fabricated evidence is not necessarily grounds to exclude
d)Product of an operating mind (self-induced intoxication doesnt count)
FACTORS in Oikle
-police minimized the seriousness of the crime there isnt much in a car fire; package deal
-offered psychiatric help during the interrogation I think you need help; maybe we can get you some
professional help
-suggested it would be better if he confessed (implied threat or promise/moral inducement)
-promise not to polygraph fiancée
-abuse of trust- police questioning in gentle re-assuring manner
-no atmosphere of oppression
-use of polygraph; admissibility of evidence; fallibility of test; voluntary or involuntary?
R. v. Hoilett (1999 Ont C.A)
www.notesolution.com

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
WDW325 March 10, 2011 Interrogations Lecture 8 Common law and Charter restrictions on Interrogations Common law must be voluntary; not the product of threat or inducement Charter must comply with s.10(b) and 7 -must advise of right to counsel -must provide opportunity to contact counsel -must stop questioning for reasonable period to allow counsel -must respect right against self-incrimination, right to remain silent Purpose of Interrogations Broadly exercise in persuasion influence subject to see the world in a particular way and to make decision according to that view (i.e. make decision to disclose informationconfess) Step 1: set the stage create sense of powerlessness Step 2: create sense of hopelessness Step 3: motivate suspect to complyspeak Purpose of Interrogation Rules Balance police interests against suspect interests -effective policing -powerful evidence -right to be left alone -protects against false confessions -confession rule puts limits on how police can interrogate people RULE: crown must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that a confession is voluntary Voluntariness R. v. Oickle (SCC 2000) FACTS: arson case of car fires; polygraph test, told the polygraph results are inadmissible but answers may be admissible, advised of right to counsel and right to silence; advised he failed, questioned further, confessed and eventually provided a re-enactment ISSUE: was the statement voluntary? TEST: to be voluntary, confession must be a) Made in circumstances free of threats or promises; the police will have to somehow convince the suspect that it is his or her best interests to confess; becomes improper only when the inducements are strong enough to raise a reasonable doubt about whether the will of the subject has been overborne b) Made in circumstances free from oppression; depriving the suspect of food, clothing, water, sleep or medical attention; excessively aggressive, intimidating question c) Made in circumstances free from undue police trickery; confronting the suspect with inadmissible or even fabricated evidence is not necessarily grounds to exclude d) Product of an operating mind (self-induced intoxication doesnt count) FACTORS in Oikle -police minimized the seriousness of the crime there isnt much in a car fire; package deal -offered psychiatric help during the interrogation I think you need help; maybe we can get you some professional help -suggested it would be better if he confessed (implied threat or promisemoral inducement) -promise not to polygraph fiance -abuse of trust- police questioning in gentle re-assuring manner -no atmosphere of oppression -use of polygraph; admissibility of evidence; fallibility of test; voluntary or involuntary? R. v. Hoilett (1999 Ont C.A) www.notesolution.com
More Less
Unlock Document


Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit