R. v. Fitton, [1956] S.C.R. 958 (1956)

Extract

---

R. v. Fitton, [1956] S.C.R. 958 (1956)

Supreme Court of Canada

R. v. Fitton, [1956] S.C.R. 958

Date: 1956-10-24

Her Majesty The Queen (Plaintiff) Appellant;

and

Robert Fitton (Defendants) Respondent.

1956: October 3, 4, 24.

Present: Kerwin C.J. and Taschereau, Rand, Kellock, Locke, Cartwright, Fauteux, Abbott and Nolan JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

Criminal law-Appeals to Supreme Court of Canada-Questions of law alone-Admissibility of confession-Court of Appeal holding confession inadmissible on mistaken ground of law-The Criminal Code, 1953-54 (Can.), c. 51, s. 598(1)(a).

Where a Court of Appeal orders a new trial on the ground that a statement by the accused was wrongly admitted at the trial, and there is dissent on this point, there is a right of appeal by the Crown if the difference of opinion between the majority and the minority was based, not on any question in respect of the evidence or the inferences to be drawn from it, but on differing views of the law applicable to the situation, and different interpretations of decided cases; the question of the admissibility of the statement is in such circumstances one of law alone.

Kerwin C.J. and Cartwright J. (dissenting) were of opinion that there was no dissent in the Court of Appeal on any question of law.

Evidence-Confessions-Admissibility-Test of voluntary nature of statement-Effect of decisions-Questioning by police officers-Suggested "cross-examination"-Intimation that previous statement not believed.

The decision in Boudreau v. The King, [1949] S.C.R. 262, did not extend in any way the rule laid down in Ibrahim v. The King, [1914] A.C. 599 at 609, as to the admissibility of confessions in evidence at the trial. It is still the law that a statement is admissible in evidence if it is shown to have been voluntary "in the sense that it has not been obtained?either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority", and the Crown need go no further than this, even in a case where questions have been asked by the police of a person in custody. In particular, the Crown is not required to show that the statement was not otherwise influenced by the course of conduct adopted by the police, or that it was "self-impelled" in any sense other than that it was not induced by fear or hope.

The accused, having been taken to the police station early in the morning, and there given an account of his movements on the previous evening, was left there all day, not formally under arrest. About 5 p.m. the police officers returned and told the accused that they had been working all day on the case (one of murder) and that they had discovered further facts indicating that what he had told them in the morning was untrue. The accused thereupon "blurted out" a damaging statement, whereupon he was stopped and given a formal warning in respect of a charge of murder, after which he made a statement, obtained in the form of question and answer, that was reduced to writing and signed by him.

Held: There was nothing in the circumstances to make either the oral statement or the written one that followed it inadmissible in evidence, and the trial judge had rightly admitted them both.

Criminal law-Trial judge's charge to jury-Whether defence adequately put to jury-Murder.

The accused was charged with the murder of a young girl by choking her, the theory of the Crown being that the killing took place during the commission of a rape. The principal ground of defence, based on a statement made by the accused to the police, was that sexual intercourse had taken place with the full consent of the girl, and that the act that resulted in her death had taken place some time later, and was in no way connected with the act of intercourse.

Held: This defence had been adequately put to the jury by the trial judge, and there was no ground for interfering with the conviction.

APPEAL by the Attorney-General for Ontario from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario[1] ordering a new trial on an indictment for murder. Appeal allowed and conviction restored.

W.B. Common, Q.C., and W.C. Bowman,...

See the full content of this document

---