R v Saretzky, 2020 ABCA 421
[46] The nature of the police conduct – the appellant does not dispute that the officer was polite and respectful throughout. And he agrees he was told he did not have to stay and talk, that he could leave at anytime, but notes that he was then in a locked room in a remand centre.
[47] That is a significant factor as he had obviously lost his liberty and his movements within the institution were strictly controlled. However, while his incarceration provides important context, it does not answer the relevant question, which is whether the appellant’s freedom to choose to meet and talk with the officer was lost or impaired. In the unique circumstances of this case, the appellant’s refusal to meet with the officer when invited to do so only two months before, and the repeated advice that he need not stay or talk but could return to his cell if and when he wished, overcame any suggestion that his being an inmate denied him the freedom of choice to leave the interview room and return to his cell: see R v Wood, 1992 ABCA 27 at paras 19-20; R v Heppner, 2019 BCCA 108 at para 68.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire