R. v. Harvey et al., (1981) 11 Man.R.(2d) 399 (CoCt)

• Court: Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: June 24, 1981
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1981), 11 Man.R.(2d) 399 (CoCt)

R. v. Harvey (1981), 11 Man.R.(2d) 399 (CoCt)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Harvey, Stefiuk, Arndt and Brooks

Indexed As: R. v. Harvey et al.

Manitoba County Court

Judges Criminal Court

Philp, C.C.C.J.

June 24, 1981.

Summary:

The accused, Harvey and three others were charged with robbery. At issue was the admissibility of nine questions put to the accused after he was taken into custody and his answers.

The Manitoba County Court held that the questions and answers were admissible.

Criminal Law - Topic 5351

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Confessions excluded because of prejudicial effect - After the accused was charged with robbery he voluntarily answered nine questions dealing with the co-accuseds and his own problems - The Manitoba County Court refused to exercise its discretion to exclude the admissible questions and answers, because they were not gravely prejudicial and of slight probative value - The court held that merely because the accused's answers were obtained by unfair means did not make them prejudicial - See paragraphs 20 to 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 5335

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Inducement - What constitutes - After taking the accused into custody, the police told him they knew his lawyer said not to make a statement, but there were questions that had to be asked - The accused said he did not want to give a statement, but answered the questions - The accused's lawyer submitted that the police comment that there were questions that had to be asked, induced the accused to answer - The Manitoba County Court held that the accused was not induced and that the questions and answers were admissible.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Robertson (1975), 21 C.C.C.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. McLeod (1968), 5 C.R.N.S. 101, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272, folld. [para. 20].

Counsel:

S. Leinburd, for the Crown;

C. Guberman, for the accused Stefiuk;

R. Pollack, for the accused Harvey;

R. Wolson, for the accused Arndt;

D. Abra, for the accused Brooks.

This case was heard by PHILP, C.C.C.J., of the Manitoba County Court Judges Criminal Court, who on June 24, 1981, delivered the following oral judgment: