Facts: The case R.v. Singh, is a criminal court case focusing on a second degree murder. The accused goes by the name of Jagrup Singh. The accused was arrested in 2007 for second degree murder. Jagrup is responsible for the death of a innocent bystander at a pub. In the interviews with police, Mr. Singh stated that he did not want to talk about the incident, and that under the charter he has a right to silence. However the police officer demanded that he must make a statement. Mr. Singh never admitted to committing the crime in the interviews, however he did make a number of suggestions in the interview, which suggests with the evidence given that he is guilty. This was important when identifying the issue in trial. On the voir dire to determine …show more content…
The accused was then convicted by a jury. The provincial court of Appeal (British Columbia) upheld the trial judge’s ruling. In both courts, the accused did not contest the trial judge’s or his conclusion that the statements were voluntary. The appeal concerned the defendant's right to s.7 right to silence. The court of Appeal focused on the conduct of the police officers interviewing the accused and the effect that the conduct had on the defendant's ability to exercise his free will. Mr Singh stated that the appellate court and the courts below had both misinterpreted the holding of an authoritative statement which entitled the police to dismiss the detainee’s wish to right to silence and the use of “legitimate means of persuasion” to break that silence (R.v.Herbert). The provincial court of British Columbia then dismissed the appeal, coming to the conclusion that there was no error in the law and that the accused is guilty in the second degree murder. The defendant then applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for …show more content…
Singh, 2007 SCC 48 went before 3 courts. The judicial court of B.C, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, and lastly the Supreme Court of Canada. Firstly, after reviewing the admissibility of the statements made by the accused, and after reviewing all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and the making of the statements, the trial judge held, believing that the statements came freely and were not a result of the police forcing the defendant to speak, breaching his right to silence guaranteed by the charter. The admission of the statements outweighed the prejudicial effect and the trial judge ruled them admissible. The accused was then convicted by a jury. The defendant then applied to appeal the court’s decision and brought the case to the attention of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The B.C. court of Appeal came to the conclusion that there was no error in the law and confirmed his conviction of second degree murder. The defendant applied for an appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court believed that the modern view of the confessions rule clearly including the right of the detained person to make a meaningful choice whether or not to speak to authorities. Therefore, the Supreme Court believed that the police demanding to proceed in the interrogation had no effect on the defendant's decision of whether or whether not to proceed in making statements about the incident. The Supreme court was in favour of the trial judge’s