R. v. Oickle, 2000 SCC 38, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3, is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...

 on the common law

Common law

Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...

 rule for confession

Confession

This article is for the religious practice of confessing one's sins.Confession is the acknowledgment of sin or wrongs...

s. Though the Charter remains in force for confessions made while in custody, the common law rule still applies in all circumstances. The majority outlined factors to determine whether a confession is voluntary.

Background

Richard Oickle was under investigation by police for a series of fires. He voluntarily underwent a polygraph

Polygraph

A polygraph measures and records several physiological indices such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while the subject is asked and answers a series of questions...

 test. The police told him he had failed and began to question him. He eventually confessed to starting the fires. Oickle was told he was under arrest and brought to the police station for further questioning. He was put in a cell near 3am, around 9 hours after his confession. The police talked to him again at 6am asking him to provide a re-enactment, which he did.

At trial he was convicted of arson. The Court of Appeal found that the confession was inadmissible and overturned the conviction.

And then after review from the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Iacobucci, writing for the majority, found that the confession was admissible.

Reasons of the court

Justice Iacobucci, writing for the majority, found that the confession was admissible. He stated the factors that should be used to determine whether a confession is voluntary:

1. the court must consider whether the police made any threats or promises. Iacobucci states that whether there is a quid pro quo
   Quid pro quo
   Quid pro quo most often means a more-or-less equal exchange or substitution of goods or services. English speakers often use the term to mean "a favour for a favour" and the phrases with almost identical meaning include: "give and take", "tit for tat", "this for that", and "you scratch my back,...
   
   for the confession will usually determine whether it was voluntary.
2. The Court must look for oppression. That is, where there is distasteful or inhumane conduct that would amount to an involuntary confession.
3. The Court must consider whether the suspect has an operating mind. The suspect is sufficiently aware of what he or she is saying and who they are saying it to.
4. The Court can consider the degree of police trickery. While trickery in general is allowed it cannot go so far as to "shocks the community".