Comment apprécier la décision policière de ne pas recourir à l'enregsitrement vidéo d'une déclaration extrajudiciaire d'un accusé

R. v. Marshall, 2005 CanLII 30051 (ON CA)

Lien vers la décision

[98] As noted in Oickle and Moore-McFarlane, the failure to record interrogations does not render them inherently suspect. Rather, a non-recorded interrogation becomes suspect when the following circumstances, which do not exist in this case, are all present: (1) the suspect is in custody; (2) recording facilities are readily available; and (3) the police deliberately interrogate the suspect without giving any thought to making a reliable record. The only custodial interrogation of the appellant took place after his arrest on September 29, 1997. It was completely recorded on videotape. In my view, the finding that the five impugned statements were voluntary was not tainted solely because they were not audio or videotaped, or because some of the attending officers did not testify on the voir dire.