International Law

R. v. Wittwer

An incriminating statement made by the appellant to the police upon being confronted with an earlier statement obtained from him in violation of his constitutional rights is inadmissible so long as there is a connection between the two statements that is “temporal, contextual, causal or a combination of the three.” But what is a temporal connection? Here, in a case before the Supreme Court, the incriminating statement was given some five months after the earlier, inadmissible statement. The trial judge, and British Columbia Court of Appeal considered this to be a “significant temporal separation.” But just a minute. When does the clock start running? The Court says (emphasis in the original):

I am satisfied that the connection is temporal, in the sense that mention of the first inadmissible statement . . . was followed immediately by the appellant?s statement to Sergeant Skrine.

Oh, in that sense. Is that what Goldhart held? I’m not so sure.

Upon further review: The Court has a comment here.

Full post as published by Criminal Review on June 12, 2008 (boomark / email).