Supreme court | Charter of Rights
ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS
Tenuous cause connection between breach and confession undermined significance of relationship
Evidence obtained in manner violating Charter. Accused charged with first degree murder. Accused confessed to undercover police officers that he killed deceased and burned his body. During undercover operation police obtained wiretap authorization and intercepted accused’s phone calls. At trial Crown conceded that interceptions violated accused’s s. 8 right. Accused sought to exclude confessions on basis that undercover operation was closely linked to s. 8 breach. Trial judge found that confessions were not obtained in manner violating Charter. Court of Appeal dismissed accused’s appeal from conviction. Appeal dismissed. Tenuous causal connection between breach and confessions undermined significance of their temporal relationship.
R. v. Mack (Sep. 26, 2014, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., LeBel J., Abella J., Cromwell J., Moldaver J., Karakatsanis J., and Wagner J., File No. 35093) Decision at 99 W.C.B. (2d) 863 was affirmed. 116 W.C.B. (2d) 461.
Tenuous cause connection between breach and confession undermined significance of relationship
Evidence obtained in manner violating Charter. Accused charged with first degree murder. Accused confessed to undercover police officers that he killed deceased and burned his body. During undercover operation police obtained wiretap authorization and intercepted accused’s phone calls. At trial Crown conceded that interceptions violated accused’s s. 8 right. Accused sought to exclude confessions on basis that undercover operation was closely linked to s. 8 breach. Trial judge found that confessions were not obtained in manner violating Charter. Court of Appeal dismissed accused’s appeal from conviction. Appeal dismissed. Tenuous causal connection between breach and confessions undermined significance of their temporal relationship.
R. v. Mack (Sep. 26, 2014, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., LeBel J., Abella J., Cromwell J., Moldaver J., Karakatsanis J., and Wagner J., File No. 35093) Decision at 99 W.C.B. (2d) 863 was affirmed. 116 W.C.B. (2d) 461.
