Dans le contexte d'une confession, le nombre de refus de répondre aux questions de la police n'est pas en soi déterminant mais constitue un facteur à considérer

R. c. Mailhot, 2008 QCCS 3033 (CanLII)

[28] Me Dagenais, pour la Couronne, invoque l'observation de madame le juge Charron dans Singh (supra) cité au tout début de cette décision: le nombre de refus n'est pas en soi déterminant mais constitue un facteur à considérer comme l'avait d'ailleurs indiqué monsieur le juge Doherty dans R. vs Roy (Ont.C.A.) (2003) 180 C.C.C.(3) page 298:

«This was a prolonged interview of a detained person. The appellant declined to answer questions on many occasions. These features of the interview invite close judicial scrutiny of the admissibility of the statement. Clearly, the repeated assertion by a detained person during a lengthy interview that he does not want to speak to the police any further will provide strong and sometimes conclusive evidence that any subsequent statement was not the product of a free exercise of the detainee's right to choose whether to speak. The question is, however, a factual question to be decided on a case-by-case basis by the trial judge. On the facts as found by this trial judge, the appellant never chose to remain silent.» (par. 13)

[29] Plus récemment dans R. vs Rybak (Ont.C.A.) (2008) (ONCA) 354 (5 mai 2008), une décision soumise par Me Dagenais, le juge Watt reprenait la même observation au paragraphe 190:

«A lengthy interview, coupled with repeated refusals to answer some questions without first speaking to a lawyer, mandate close judicial scrutiny of the admissibility of the record of interview. R. v. Roy 2003 CanLII 4272 (ON C.A.), 2003 CanLII 4272 (ON C.A.), (2003), 180 C.C.C.(3d) 298, 303-4 (Ont.C.A.). In the end, what must be decided is whether the conduct of the state authorities denied the appellant the right to choose speech or silence, or deprived him of an operating mind. Hebert at 184; Singh at para. 46.» (par. 190)