Les déclarations spontanées et soliloques d'un accusé en détention ne constituent pas des confessions juridiques dès lors qu'ils ne sont pas adressés à une personne en autorité

R v Cyr, 2016 SKCA 86

Lien vers la décision

[59]           As a matter of first principle, the Crown was not required to cross-examine Mr. Cyr on the utterance. It was not a “confession.” The words were not spoken to anyone – let alone a person in authority. They were in essence a soliloquy that was captured on a video and audio recording. Mr. Cyr was in police custody and he knew he was being audio and videotaped, but these factors do not change the character of the utterances. A parallel can be drawn between something that an accused says to another person while in police custody that is overheard. Such statements are not considered “confessions” (see R v Comeau (1973), 1973 CanLII 1358 (NS CA), 14 CCC (2d) 472 (NSSC) and R v Parnekar (No. 2), 1974 CanLII 988 (SK CA), [1974] 5 WWR 101 (Sask CA), cited in David Watt, Watt’s Manual of Criminal Evidence (Toronto: Carswell, 2015) at s 37.06). In any event, Mr. Cyr agreed that the statement contained on the disc and the transcript of it were admissible.