The Inadmissible: The Superior Court Case

The Superior Court ruled that the appeal should be allowed, and that this evidence should be considered inadmissible since the accused chose not to make any statements - he was practicing his right to remain silent. The police violated his right under s. 7 of the Charter by tricking him into opposing his decision, which then made the trial unjust. An undercover police officer must serve the purpose of observation of suspects, rather than actively drawing out evidence or information in violation of the person’s right to remain silent. Seeing as the statements were the only piece of evidence the Crown had in order to be able to prove the individual guilty, it’s evident that under the current conditions, it’s the admission of the evidence rather
than its exclusion that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.