Background
Two innocent civilians were killed in their residence on May 29, 2010. The Crown’s theory was that Mr. Correia and a co-accused were members of a rival gang who had attended the residence to kill Doug Mahon, who had moved away months prior. Mr. Correia had already been convicted of conspiracy to murder in relation to a separate Doug Mahon murder plot and was arrested for the double murder while he was on parole, in June 2018.
The main issue at trial was identification. Both accused argued that the evidence failed to establish that they were present when the shootings occurred or that they were persons who shot the victims.
One witness, referred to as Witness Z, testified that he saw both accused close to the murder scene at the relevant time, returning from the scene two hours later with blood on their clothing and carrying pistols; however, the Court did not believe Witness Z beyond a reasonable doubt as a result of lying to the police for years about his involvement in the case.
Importantly, the police obtained incriminating statements from Mr. Correia over three days of interviews following his arrest. Apart from these statements, the Crown’s case was largely circumstantial – neighbours who saw disguised gunman, bullets and casings found at the scene, bloody footprints on the floor, and highway witnesses who were driving around the residence where the murders took place. The only objective evidence that Mr. Correia may have been at the scene of the crime was a shoe sole tread that was similar to his.
The trial judge found that there was a reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of the accused’s statements due to a “combination of police trickery and a ‘diminished ability to think clearly’” and ruled the statements to be inadmissible. Ultimately, Mr. Correia was acquitted based on reasonable doubt.
The Crown appealed the trial decision partly on the basis that the trial judge erred in law on the admissibility of Mr. Correia’s inculpatory statements.
The Confessions Rule
Where an accused makes an inculpatory statement to an officer, that statement is presumptively inadmissible. The Crown must satisfy the Court beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was made voluntarily in the circumstances. In assessing voluntariness, the judge will consider whether police used threats or inducements, whether the interview environment was oppressive, and whether the police engaged in “trickery”. The “confessions rule” regarding police trickery gives considerable latitude to police and relates to fairness and the integrity of the criminal justice system. Its purpose is to repress police conduct that would “shock the community”.
Mr. Correia was arrested on a Friday evening and transported to an RCMP detachment in Edmonton. At the outset, he was unwilling to talk to the officers at all. The interviewers moved to a “we are your friends who want to help you approach”, arranging for a visit from his partner and bringing him restaurant food for his meals. By Saturday, the accused began to make incriminating statements. By Sunday, Mr. Correia had made significant incriminating statements, including an account of events with the “boss”.
The “police trickery” that the trial judge founded his decision on is described as follows: after calling his lawyer, an interviewer told Mr. Correia that, using the Court’s words, “he did not have to talk about the murders, he could simply talk about the offence of conspiracy for which he had already been convicted and served his sentence, and therefore he would not have to worry about it being used against him”. The defence argued that this line of questioning was improper.
Decisions
The trial judge found that the interviewer was giving a “primitive form of legal advice” that would cause a person to believe it to be safe to talk about the conspiracy, and described it as “confusing at best, and deliberately misleading”. Both Crown and defence expert psychiatrists who reviewed the video and audiotapes agreed the accused suffered from generalized anxiety disorder at the time of the interviews. The judge found there was a reasonable doubt that Mr. Corriea’s statements to police were not voluntary because the statements were induced by “police trickery” and a ‘diminished ability to think clearly’.
On appeal, the BC Court of Appeal acknowledged that to reach the point of inadmissibility, both elements: the lack of an operating mind and police trickery are required.
In allowing the appeal and ordering a new trial, the Court of Appeal reasoned that a diminished ability to think clearly did not mean that the Mr. Correia could not comprehend what he was saying or that it could be used against him. On review of the interview record, the police had consistently cautioned Mr. Correia that what he said was evidence and could be used against him. There was “simply no evidence” to support the view that police tricked Mr. Correia by somehow confusing him regarding the earlier conspiracy charge to murder Doug Mahon with the double murders he was charged with.
Further, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge engaged in conjecture in finding that Mr. Correia would self-incriminate on the murder charges if he talked about the conspiracy, as the offences were different events at different times.
Conclusion
The police tactics employed in Correia were ultimately upheld as appropriate. Correia is a reminder that police actions in obtaining confessions are given a wide latitude by the courts but officers should be cautious and alert that when engaging interviewing tactics, warnings should be properly given that an accused’s statement may be used as evidence such that an accused knows the statements are given voluntarily and in circumstances that would not objectively “shock the community”.
Subscribe to RSS Feed