R. v. Tremblett (A.C.), 2012 NSPC 118

• Judge: Ross, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 10, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2012 NSPC 118;(2012), 325 N.S.R.(2d) 1 (PC)

R. v. Tremblett (A.C.) (2012), 325 N.S.R.(2d) 1 (PC);

    1031 A.P.R. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.031

Her Majesty The Queen v. Augustus Clarence Tremblett (No. 2)

(2288101/102/103; 2012 NSPC 118)

Indexed As: R. v. Tremblett (A.C.)

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Ross, P.C.J.

April 10, 2012.

Summary:

Six police officers, under the authority of a warrant, executed a forced entry into the residence of the accused. They entered with firearms drawn, hollering orders to "get down". The accused was immediately arrested and handcuffed. While lying on the floor, he was read his Charter rights and a standard police caution, after which he made a verbal utterance admitting his involvement in cocaine trafficking. He was charged with drug offences. At issue was, inter alia, whether the verbal utterance could be admitted at trial.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that the statement was admissible.

Editor's note: for another case dealing with this accused, see 314 N.S.R.(2d) 48; 994 A.P.R. 48 (Prov. Ct.).

Criminal Law - Topic 5355

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Whether statement was made freely and voluntarily - Six police officers, under the authority of a warrant, executed a forced entry into the residence of the accused - They entered with firearms drawn, hollering orders to "get down" - The accused was immediately arrested and handcuffed - While lying on the floor, he was read his Charter rights and a standard police caution, after which he made a verbal utterance admitting his involvement in cocaine trafficking - He was charged with drug offences - At issue was, inter alia, whether the verbal utterance could be admitted at trial - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that the statement was admissible - The police did not attempt to elicit the statement - The threatening manner of the entry and arrest was justified by legitimate law enforcement objectives and was not directed to obtaining a statement - While there was no direct evidence of the subjective state of the accused, an objective view of his behaviour and the surrounding circumstances led to a conclusion that the statement did not offend the confessions rule - The verbal utterance was made voluntarily - See paragraphs 13 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. S.G.G., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 716; 214 N.R. 161; 94 B.C.A.C. 81; 152 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 11].

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; 2000 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Jackman (J.A.) (2008), 452 A.R. 155 (Prov. Ct.), dist. [para. 22].

Counsel:

Wayne MacMillan, federal Crown Attorney;

Matthew MacNeil, defense Attorney.

This case was heard at Sydney, Nova Scotia, on April 10, 2012, by Ross, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for decision on the same date.