VOLUNTARINESS - NEED TO PROVE NO THREATS, PROMISES OR INDUCEMENTS
Saturday, December 3, 2011 at 5:54PM Constables Riddell and Webber arrived at the hospital together to investigate the accused for impaired driving. Cst. Bulow arrived shortly after. At the trial constables Webber and Bulow were called by the Crown. Webber testified that Riddell was present for part of the interaction with the accused but he sent him off to handle other tasks. Webber was also testifed that there conversations between he and the accused for which he did not make any notes and could not recall.
The court held that the Crown failed to prove that the statement was voluntary. The court pointed out that neither officer testified about Riddell's presence during the interaction with the accused, other than he was present. The Crown also did not offer any explanation for his absence. The court said the Crown should have produced, at least for cross-examination, Cst. Riddell.
The court also held that although it is not necessary for the Crown witness to recall in precise detail all conversations with the accused, the Court must have sufficient evidence before it to determine whether the statement was voluntary. The Crown had to provide some evidence that the conversations did not contain any threats, promises or inducements. In the case at hand, the officer was not asked to confirm that was in fact the case. R. v. Magnowski, 2011 BCSC 967