R. v. D.P.W., (2008) 319 Sask.R. 242 (PC)

• Judge: Jackson, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 03, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2008), 319 Sask.R. 242 (PC);2008 SKPC 54

R. v. D.P.W. (2008), 319 Sask.R. 242 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.019

Her Majesty the Queen v. D.P.W.

(Information No. 39843733; 2008 SKPC 54)

Indexed As: R. v. D.P.W.

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Youth Justice Court

Jackson, P.C.J.

April 3, 2008.

Summary:

At issue on this voir dire was whether a statement made by an accused young person was inadmissible as there had been no compliance with s. 146(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, held that the statement was not admissible.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 8714.3

Young offenders - General principles - Right to consultation with or presence of parent or adult - [See Criminal Law - Topic 8845 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8843

Young offenders - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof - [See Criminal Law - Topic 8845 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8845

Young offenders - Evidence and proof - Admissibility of evidence obtained contrary to Youth Criminal Justice Act - The accused young person was charged with impaired driving offences and hit and run - At issue was whether a statement (oral utterances) he made was inadmissible as there had been no compliance with s. 146(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) - The Crown argued that the statement was "spontaneous" within the meaning of s. 146(3) YCJA, and thus outside the procedural requirements of s. 146(2) - The police officer testified that he approached the driver's side window and asked for driver's license and registration and then advised that they were investigating a hit and run accident and that the accused's vehicle description, apparent damage and license plate all matched - At this point the accused became emotional and offered "I know, I know, I fucked up." - Although not denying that he said these words, the accused testified that he only did so after being asked whether he had been involved in a hit and run accident - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, was not satisfied that the responses were not garnered by way of question and answer - Any doubt should be exercised in favour of the youth - Further, even if the officer's version were proven, it would still be an "external stimulus" and therefore not "spontaneous" - The statement was not admissible.

Words and Phrases

Spontaneous - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, discussed the meaning of the word "spontaneous" as found in s. 146(3) Youth Criminal Justice Act - See paragraphs 7 and 8.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. J.W. (1996), 92 O.A.C. 299; 109 C.C.C.(3d) 506 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. W.N., [2005] O.J. No. 6329 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 2].

R. v. O.K., [2004] B.C.J. No. 1458 (B.C. Youth Ct.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 2].

R. v. C.L.M. (2000), 191 Sask.R. 290 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 2].

R. v. C.R.M. (1998), 165 Sask.R. 95; 33 M.V.R.(3d) 308 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 2].

Statutes Noticed:

Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1, sect. 146(3) [para. 6].

Counsel:

D.D. Black, for the Crown;

M.W. Owens, for the Defence.

This voir dire was heard by Jackson, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, who delivered the following decision on April 3, 2008.