The appellants, Mr. Beaver and his co-accused, Mr. Lambert, were convicted of manslaughter in relation to the death of their roommate. After being initially detained by officers at the scene under a non-existent act, they were arrested by detectives for murder two hours later at the police station. Following a lengthy interview, the co-accused, Mr. Lambert, confessed to their involvement in the death of the roommate; when confronted with the confession, Mr. Beaver admitted his participation as well.At trial, Mr. Beaver and Mr. Lambert sought a stay of proceedings or, alternatively, the exclusion of all evidence which derived from alleged violations of his rights protected by ss. 7, 9, 10(a) and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Beaver and Mr. Lambert also alleged that the detective who arrested him at the station did not have reasonable and probable grounds to do so. The Crown conceded that the appellants’ Charter rights had been breached when they were detained under a non-existent law, but argued that the arrest at the station constituted a “fresh start” which insulated his confession from the previous breaches. The trial judge dismissed the application, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Mr. Beaver and Mr. Lambert for murder at the police station, and that the arrest constituted a “fresh start” which cured the previous breaches. The trial judge concluded that the confessions had not been tainted by the breaches. Nevertheless, the trial judge conducted a s. 24(2) analysis and concluded that the confessions would have been admitted.Mr. Beaver and Mr. Lambert appealed to the Court of Appeal of Alberta. All three members of the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Mr. Beaver’s appeal. The Court held that the trial judge properly found that sufficient grounds existed for the arrest of Mr. Beaver and Mr. Lambert based on the information the police had at the time and that the trial judge did not err in finding that the confessions were not tainted by the Charter breaches, that Mr. Beaver’s confession was voluntary and by allowing Mr. Beaver’s and Mr. Lambert’s confession to be admitted into evidence. Mr. Beaver and Mr. Lambert were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related