Histor History Of Admissibility Of Confessions

In Canadian criminal law there has been no issue more contentious than that of the confession and its admissibility in court. Prior to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the only question for the court was the reliability of a forced confession. Since 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada, through the application of the Charter, continues to redraw the rules on confessions and evidence admissibility. This paper takes the position that the manner in which a confession has been obtained has become more important than its factual reliability, based upon relevant decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada. To understand current judicial thought on admissibility of confessions, this paper will discuss historical developments in this field and the need to keep justice out of disrepute. This paper will examine several significant cases in which the courts were called upon to balance the need to convict criminals with the need to protect the rights of these same accused person granted by the Charter. Ultimately, through examination of these cases and other relevant documents such at the United Nations Convention Against Torture, this paper will conclude whether a forced but reliable pre-Charter confession discussed in R vs. Wray would be admissible in the legal landscape of today.
Inclusive within the definition of evidence [emphasis added] is the confession or the statement of the