Lors d’une analyse du caractère libre et volontaire des déclarations extrajudiciaires, un juge commet une erreur de droit s’il omet de se pencher sur l’absence d’enregistrement et sur la suffisance de la preuve de la poursuite pour pallier ce défaut, ces deux critères étant cumulatifs

R. v. Ahmed, 2002 CanLII 695 (ON CA)

Lien vers la décision

[22]         In R. v. Browne, [2002] O.J. No. 3882, released October 16, 2002, this Court, following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision inSheppard, reiterated that the failure of a trial judge to deliver meaningful reasons is an error of law. In my view, by failing to analyze the evidence and give reasons for his crucial credibility findings on the voir dire, the trial judge did not adequately address the two issues required by Moore-McFarlane in order to satisfy the heavy onus on the Crown to prove the voluntariness of the confession beyond a reasonable doubt: first, whether in the circumstances of the case the failure to record the interrogation made it suspect; and if so, second, whether the Crown had provided a sufficient substitute for a recording.