Les techniques d'interrogatoires pouvant être sanctionnées par la Cour

R. v. Koivisto, 2011 ONCJ 307 

80 In what is referred to as the "interrogation trilogy", the Supreme Court of Canada has spoken directly on the issues raised in this voir dire…

81 Nowhere in the trilogy of cases does the Supreme Court of Canada sanction the following interrogation techniques:

1. Not advising the detainee of who the offence is alleged to have been committed against making the detainee guess who it might be; 
2. Not advising the detainee of the nature of the allegation making the detainee guess what the allegations might be; 
3. Referring to non-existing evidence that infers a far more serious allegation than that made by the complainant (example in this case was that the Applicant's DNA was found on the child's body the allegation involved sexual touching by hand only); 
4. Ignoring repeated statements by the detainee that he does not want to say anything; 
5. References to the police's obligation to continue questioning despite the detainee's repeated requests not to say anything; 
6. Misrepresenting that the police function is to help the detainee. 

82 In Sinclair, the latest decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on these issues, Mr. Justice Binnie in dissent, warns the majority that their words in the Oickle/Singh and Sinclair (supra) decisions could be misinterpreted.

83 In this case, that is precisely what has happened. The officer and the Crown have cherry-picked through the trilogy of cases to support their position that the Applicant's common law and Charter rights were not violated in this case. They have confused the police duty to investigate crime with an entitlement to ignore and violate a detainee's common law and Charter rights