R. v. Leahey (C.P.)

• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Judge: Jacobson, P.C.J.
• Citation: 2000 ABPC 196,(2000), 278 A.R. 201 (ProvCt)
• Date: 02 November 2000

R. v. Leahey (C.P.) (2000), 278 A.R. 201 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. JA.015

Her Majesty the Queen v. Christopher Paul Leahey

(05256011P1; 2000 ABPC 196)

Indexed As: R. v. Leahey (C.P.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Jacobson, P.C.J.

November 2, 2000.

Summary:

Leahey was charged with three counts of assault. The incidents were alleged to have occurred while he was a probationary constable with the Calgary police. He made an inculpatory statement to an acting superior officer at a social club prior to his dismissal from the force and before he was suspected or charged in relation to any offence. A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the statement.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that the statement was admissible.

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent (Charter, s. 7) - Leahey, a probationary police officer, made inculpatory statements to an acting superior officer, Squirrel - The conversation took place in a private police club while both were off duty - Leahey claimed that the statement should be excluded from evidence as it was made to a person in authority in breach of his s. 7 Charter right to silence -The Alberta Provincial Court held that the statement was admissible - Leahey was free to choose whether to speak or to remain silent - There was no coercion, trickery, misinformation or lack of information which would have affected his choice - Leahey made the statement freely in an informal atmosphere and was not under investigation at the time.

Criminal Law - Topic 5353

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Who is a person in authority - Leahey, a probationary police officer, made inculpatory statements to an acting superior officer, Squirrel - The conversation took place in a private police club while both were off duty - Leahey claimed that the statement should be excluded from evidence as it was made to a person in authority without benefit of counsel - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the statement was admissible - In the circumstances Squirrel was not a person in authority - The conversation took place "teammate to teammate" and involved no coercion or intimidation - Both officers were off duty and not subject to routine police procedures and neither thought about their respective status - See paragraphs 114 to 150.

Criminal Law - Topic 5355

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Whether statement was made freely and voluntarily - Leahey, a probationary police officer, made inculpatory statements to an acting superior officer, Squirrel - The conversation took place in a private police club while both were off duty - Leahey claimed that the statement should be excluded from evidence as it was not made freely and voluntarily - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the statement was admissible - Leahey was not pressured, cajoled or coerced to talk - The statement was made when no investigation was ongoing and no complaints had been made - Further, the statement was made in an atmosphere of conviviality - In the context there was no reason for Leahey to believe that Squirrel was other than a teammate - See paragraphs 150 to 183.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. M.C.H., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 449; 230 N.R. 1; 113 O.A.C. 97; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 479, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Hodgson - see R. v. M.C.H.

R. v. Wells (S.W.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 517; 230 N.R. 183; 112 B.C.A.C. 101; 182 W.A.C. 101; 18 C.R.(5th) 181; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 500, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. White (J.K.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 417; 240 N.R. 1; 123 B.C.A.C. 161; 201 W.A.C. 161; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Whittle (D.J.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 914; 170 N.R. 16; 73 O.A.C. 201; 116 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 11; 32 C.R.(4th) 1; 23 C.R.R.(2d) 6, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Calder (M.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 660; 194 N.R. 52; 90 O.A.C. 18; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 1, affing. (1994), 74 O.A.C. 1; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Oickle (R.F.) (2000), 259 N.R. 227; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 585 A.P.R. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Paquette (J.) (1999), 94 O.T.C. 182 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Precourt (1976), 18 O.R.(2d) 714 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Rothman, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640; 35 N.R. 485, refd to. [para. 107].

Blackburn v. Alabama (1960), 361 U.S. 199, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 24 O.A.C. 321; 61 Sask.R. 105; 60 C.R.(3d) 193; [1988] 1 W.W.R. 193; 28 Admin. L.R. 294; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 235; 32 C.R.R. 219; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Morris, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1041; 27 N.R. 313; 26 N.B.R.(2d) 273; 55 A.P.R. 273; 47 C.C.C.(2d) 257, refd to. [para. 118].

Vanovermeire v. Edmonton (City) Police Commission (1993), 139 A.R. 207; 9 Alta. L.R.(3d) 396 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; 131 N.R. 118; 120 A.R. 189; 8 W.A.C. 189; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 308; 9 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Liew (K.L.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 227; 244 N.R. 249; 244 A.R. 1; 209 W.A.C. 1; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Deane (K.) (2000), 129 O.A.C. 335 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. J.W. (1996), 92 O.A.C. 299; 2 C.R.(5th) 233 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. Frank, [1970] 2 C.C.C. 102 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 145].

R. v. Stewart (1981), 21 A.R. 300; 54 C.C.C.(2d) 93 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 145].

R. v. B.G., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 475; 240 N.R. 260, refd to. [para. 152].

R. v. Warren, [1997] N.W.T.J. No. 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 153].

R. v. Johns (M.) (1998), 106 O.A.C. 291 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 155].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 155].

R. v. Moran (1987), 21 O.A.C. 257; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. Fitzpatrick (B.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 154; 188 N.R. 248; 65 B.C.A.C. 1; 106 W.A.C. 1; 43 C.R.(4th) 343; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 144, refd to. [para. 169].

R. v. Alexis (1994), 34 C.R.(4th) 117 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 177].

R. v. Jones (S.) (1992), 16 B.C.A.C. 161; 28 W.A.C. 161; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 327 (C.A.), affd. [1994] 2 S.C.R. 229; 166 N.R. 321; 43 B.C.A.C. 241; 69 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 180].

R. v. Van Haarlem (1991), 135 N.R. 379; 7 B.C.A.C. 133; 15 W.A.C. 133; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 543 (C.A.), affd. (1992), 135 N.R. 377; 7 B.C.A.C. 131; 15 W.A.C. 131; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 448 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 181].

R. v. Hartridge (1966), 48 C.R. 389 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 183].

R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 2 C.R.(5th) 245, refd to. [para. 183].

R. v. L.R.I. and E.T., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 504; 159 N.R. 363; 37 B.C.A.C. 48; 60 W.A.C. 48; 26 C.R.(4th) 119; 109 D.L.R.( 4th) 140; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 19 C.R.R.(2d) 156, refd to. [para. 189].

Monette v. R., [1956] S.C.R. 400, refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. Erven, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 926; 25 N.R. 49; 30 N.S.R.(2d) 89; 49 A.P.R. 89; 44 C.C.C.(2d) 76, refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. Wijesinha (W.K.K.) (1994), 68 O.A.C. 356; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 116 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Marin, René J., Admissibility of Statements (9th Ed. 1996) (2000 Looseleaf Update), paras. 10.1633 [para. 62]; 10.1390 [para. 63]; 10.1380, 10.1400, 10.1410 [para. 64]; 10.1550 to 10.1560 [para 67]; 10.1590 [para. 68]; 10.1595 [para. 69]; 10.1635, 10.1637 [para. 70].

Counsel:

Clifton Purvis, for the Crown;

C.D. Evans, Q.C., for the accused.

This voir dire was heard before Jacobson, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on November 2, 2000.