In an era of Charter protections, the common law rule excluding involuntary confessions remains a suspect’s best legal protection against coercive interrogation. This paper reviews and evaluates the current Canadian confessions rule and points to some ways the protection it offers might be strengthened. The basic contours of the rule are drawn from R. v. Oickle, the leading Supreme Court of Canada case, and refinements to the rule from the recent Supreme Court cases of R. v. Spencer and R. v. Singh are also discussed. The paper concludes that the confessions rule represents a modest but crucial safeguard for the accused that pursues the two distinct goals of excluding unreliable evidence and ensuring fair treatment of interrogated suspects....
The entry of a guilty plea has significant constitutional ramifications. It relieves the Crown of it...
This paper asks whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as interpreted over the past 25...
For more than a century, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Bill of Rights as prohibiting the p...
In an era of Charter protections, the common law rule excluding involuntary confessions remains a su...
This paper examines the extent to which the Charter has impacted on police interrogation in the crim...
In R. v. Oickle, the Supreme Court of Canada expressly stated that the Canadian confessions rule sh...
This thesis is a discussion about the inadequacy of the Canadian confessions rule in light of what m...
In the 2010 case of R. v. Sinclair, the Supreme Court of Canada explained how the Charter right to c...
The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision of R v Hart in July of 2014. The decision provided...
Unlike in the areas of detention and search, Parliament has played no role in regulating the questio...
The advent of the Charter coincided with the Supreme Court of Canada’s development of a principled a...
This Article explores the Supreme Court of Canada\u27s use of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in ...
Undoubtedly, one of the most contentious areas of law in England, Canada and the United States is, a...
Many studies have been conducted to examine how false confessions occur, and what their impacts are....
This paper argues that judicial assertion of entrenched Charter standards since 1982 has constituted...
The entry of a guilty plea has significant constitutional ramifications. It relieves the Crown of it...
This paper asks whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as interpreted over the past 25...
For more than a century, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Bill of Rights as prohibiting the p...
In an era of Charter protections, the common law rule excluding involuntary confessions remains a su...
This paper examines the extent to which the Charter has impacted on police interrogation in the crim...
In R. v. Oickle, the Supreme Court of Canada expressly stated that the Canadian confessions rule sh...
This thesis is a discussion about the inadequacy of the Canadian confessions rule in light of what m...
In the 2010 case of R. v. Sinclair, the Supreme Court of Canada explained how the Charter right to c...
The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision of R v Hart in July of 2014. The decision provided...
Unlike in the areas of detention and search, Parliament has played no role in regulating the questio...
The advent of the Charter coincided with the Supreme Court of Canada’s development of a principled a...
This Article explores the Supreme Court of Canada\u27s use of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in ...
Undoubtedly, one of the most contentious areas of law in England, Canada and the United States is, a...
Many studies have been conducted to examine how false confessions occur, and what their impacts are....
This paper argues that judicial assertion of entrenched Charter standards since 1982 has constituted...
The entry of a guilty plea has significant constitutional ramifications. It relieves the Crown of it...
This paper asks whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as interpreted over the past 25...
For more than a century, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Bill of Rights as prohibiting the p...