R. v. Minde (M.B.), 2003 ABQB 797

• Judge: Moreau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 19, 2003
• Citations: 2003 ABQB 797;(2003), 343 A.R. 371 (QB)

R. v. Minde (M.B.) (2003), 343 A.R. 371 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. SE.095

Her Majesty the Queen v. Mitchell Beaudry Minde (accused)

(No. 020043436Q1; 2003 ABQB 797)

Indexed As: R. v. Minde (M.B.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Wetaskiwin

Moreau, J.

September 19, 2003.

Summary:

The accused was charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault. A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the accused's video-taped statement and letter of apology and a video-taped re-enactment.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the statement, letter of apology and re-enactment were not admissible.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the accused's rights under s. 9 of the Charter were violated when two interrogating officers used arrest as a tool to secure their ability to further question the accused after neither officer believed that he had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused and their interrogating techniques of positive confrontation, minimization and deceit had not been effective to persuade the accused to remain in the interview room - The court excluded a video-taped statement, letter of apology and video-taped re-enactment made as a result - See paragraphs 18 to 31, 90 to 97.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5355

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Whether statement was made freely and voluntarily - The accused was charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault - The accused had made a video-taped statement and letter of apology and participated in a video-taped re-enactment after having been interrogated by two police officers who used the Reid Technique of police interrogation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the statement, letter of apology and re-enactment were inadmissible - The combined effect of the deceit perpetrated by the officers, their powerful moral and spiritual inducements, the minimization techniques used and the absence of any offer of food or refreshment for a number of hours, created an atmosphere in which the accused had to trade admissions in order to extract himself from the more serious consequences of a murder charge - The accused having admitted to having been drinking on the evening in question and to having memory problems, there was a further risk created by the conduct of the officers, that he felt obliged to provide an explanation for the death, whether or not the explanation was true - The comments of police carried the same implication that the officers would assist the accused to avoid being prosecuted for murder if he told his side of the story - The court was left in a state of reasonable doubt as to whether as a result of the conduct of the police, the accused's incriminating admissions were obtained through fear of prejudice or hope of advantage held out to the accused - See paragraphs 1 to 89.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ibrahim, [1914] A.C. 599 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Rothman, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640; 35 N.R. 485, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Sawchyn (1981), 30 A.R. 314; 60 C.C.C.(2d) 200, leave to appeal refused [1981] 2 S.C.R. xi; 39 N.R. 616; 33 A.R. 198, consd. [para. 5].

R. v. Oickle (R.F.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3; 259 N.R. 227; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 585 A.P.R. 201, consd. [para. 6].

R. v. Whittle (D.J.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 914; 170 N.R. 16; 73 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Hébert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 16].

R. v. D.J.M (2003) 343 A.R. 11 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Giroux, [1995] B.C.J. No. 1982 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Moore-McFarlane (G.C.) et al. (2001), 152 O.A.C. 120; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 493 (C.A.), consd. [para. 83].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 95].

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, refd to. [para. 96].

Counsel:

J. Ian Fraser, for the Crown;

David R. Cunningham, for the accused.

Moreau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Wetaskiwin, heard this voir dire and delivered the following ruling on September 19, 2003.