Court of Appeal

Decision Information

R. v. Hurley

Court Court of Appeal
Date 2006-09-08
Citation 2006 NSCA 104
Docket CAC 246575
Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator MacDonald, J. Michael (Honourable Chief Justice) (CA); Oland, Linda L. (Honourable Justice); Bateman, Nancy J. (Honourable Justice) (CA)
Document Type Library Sheet
Relations Decision - R. v. Hurley - 2006 NSCA 104 - 2006-09-08 - Decision

Decision Content

 

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL

                                 Citation: R. v. Hurley, 2006 NSCA 104   

                                                                                                     Date: 20060908

                                                                                             Docket: CAC 246575

                                                                                                   Registry:  Halifax

 

Between:

                                              Her Majesty the Queen

                                                                                                               Appellant

                                                             v.

 

                                                Larry Kevin Hurley

                                                                                                            Respondent

                                                                                                                            

                                                             

JUDGE:                                   MacDonald, C.J.N.S.

 

APPEAL HEARD:                   May 25, 2006, in Halifax, Nova Scotia

 

SUBJECT:       Criminal Law, Confessions, Voluntariness

 

SUMMARY:    The trial judge refused to admit the accused’s warned statement into evidence, having a reasonable doubt as to its voluntariness.  The Crown appealed citing error in law.

 

ISSUE:             Did the judge commit reversible error by refusing to admit the statement?

 

RESULT:         Appeal allowed and new trial ordered.

 

The trial judge refused to admit the statement only because he was troubled by the poor quality of the video recording.  This is not one of the established legal principles upon which such statements may be excluded. [R. v. Oickle [2000], S.C.J. No. 38.]

 

Furthermore, it could not be said that the verdict would have necessarily been the same had the statement been admitted. [R. v. Sutton, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 595.]

 

 

 

This information sheet does not form part of the court’s judgment.  Quotes must be from the judgment, not this cover sheet.  The full court judgment consists of 12 pages.

 

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.