R. v. Romansky, (1981) 6 Man.R.(2d) 408 (CoCt)

• Court: Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: February 20, 1981
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1981), 6 Man.R.(2d) 408 (CoCt)

R. v. Romansky (1981), 6 Man.R.(2d) 408 (CoCt)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Romansky

Indexed As: R. v. Romansky

Manitoba County Court

Judges' Criminal Court

Dauphin Judicial District

Darichuk, C.C.J.

February 20, 1981.

Summary:

The accused was apprehended during an investigation of the taking of a purse by violence. After being charged and cautioned, he gave an exculpatory statement. The accused voluntarily participated in a line-up and agreed to re-attend for a polygraph examination.

The accused was taken by the investigating officer to a motel for the polygraph examination. The accused was 19 years of age, had a grade 7 education with some upgrading and was 5 feet 8 inches tall, weighing approximately 150 pounds. The officer conducting the polygraph examination was 6 feet 3 inches tall, weighed approximately 218 pounds and had conducted approximately 200 examinations.

The accused remained with the polygraph examiner for approximately three hours, during which four polygrams were taken. After perusing the charts, the polygraph operator seated himself within two feet of the accused and conducted a post-test interview. After approximately 10 minutes, the accused broke down. The accused then agreed with all of the suggestions of the operator. Upon his return to the R.C.M.P. detachment, the accused gave a second statement to the investigating officer.

The Manitoba County Court Judges' Criminal Court on a voir dire held that the conduct of the polygraph operator was improper and constituted oppression. The court held that the statement made by the accused and the diagram drawn subsequent to the post-test interview were inadmissible on the basis of oppression.

Criminal Law - Topic 5349

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Warning - Sufficiency of - The accused was given a warning prior to giving a statement on a charge of theft - The accused was subsequently charged with robbery - Counsel for the accused submitted that the statement was inadmissible - The Manitoba County Court Judges' Criminal Court rejected defence counsel's submission, because the indictment concerned the same subject matter and the accused was not cautioned with respect to an altogether different charge from that which he ultimately faced at trial - See paragraphs 40 to 45.

Criminal Law - Topic 5355

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Whether statement made freely and voluntarily - The Manitoba County Court Judges' Criminal Court held that despite the absence of evidence of hope of advantage or fear of prejudice, a statement made and a diagram drawn by the accused subsequent to a post-polygraph test interview were inadmissible on the basis of oppression - The court stated that no statement resulting from oppression can be voluntary - See paragraphs 36 to 39.

Cases Noticed:

Ibrahim v. The King, [1914] A.C. 599, consd. [para. 14].

R. v. Boudreau, [1949] S.C.R. 262; 7 C.R. 427, consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Walker (1939), 71 C.C.C. 305, consd. [para. 16].

R. v. Fitton (1956), 24 C.R. 371, consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Horvath (1979), 47 C.C.C.(2d) 498; 7 C.R.(3d) 97; 25 N.R. 537, consd. [para. 18].

R. v. Ward (1979), 47 C.C.C.(2d) 387; 7 C.R.(3d) 153; 25 N.R. 514; 14 A.R. 412, consd. [para. 18].

R. v. Fowler (1980), 4 W.C.B. 80; 23 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 255; 61 A.P.R. 255, consd. [para. 25].

Phillion v. The Queen, 37 C.R.N.S. 361, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Berke, [1979] 1 W.W.R. 289, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Seabrooke, [1932] O.R. 575; 85 C.C.C. 323, dist. [para. 40].

R. v. Dick, [1947] O.R. 105; 87 C.C.C. 101, dist. [para. 40].

R. v. Deagle (1947), 88 C.C.C. 247, dist. [para. 40].

Counsel:

L. Giesbrecht, for the Crown;

J.J. Oliphant, Q.C., for the accused.

This case was heard before DARICHUK, C.C.J., of the Manitoba County Court Judges' Criminal Court for The Dauphin Judicial District.

The judgment of DARICHUK, C.C.J., was delivered on February 20, 1981: