R v Blackman

In this case, the respondent was charged with the murder of a police officer. The matter proceeded to a special hearing before a judge alone, which involved a lengthy voir dire concerning the admissibility of certain evidence. The Crown sought to adduce statements made by the respondent, however, the respondent objected to the admission of these statements under various provisions of the Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Act. The judge found that all of the statements were inadmissible under section 84 of the Evidence Act, and provided the parties with ancillary rulings on the basis of these findings. The Crown then appealed the judge’s findings, seeking to have the statements admitted.

The court was required to determine whether the judge was correct to exclude all of the respondent’s admissions from evidence. The court considered whether the statements were properly excluded by section 84 of the Evidence Act, which provides that evidence of a person’s admission is not admissible to prove that the person committed an offence. The court also considered whether the statements were properly excluded under sections 85, 90, 138 and 139 of the Evidence Act, which provide that evidence may be excluded on various grounds, including the protection of the public interest and the protection of a party to the proceedings. The court also considered whether section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act required the statements to be admitted.

The court found that the statements were properly excluded under section 84 of the Evidence Act, which precluded the need to consider the other provisions of the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Act. The court held that the statements were admissions, and as such were properly excluded. The court held that the statements did not fall within any of the exceptions to section 84, and therefore could not be admitted. The court also held that section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act did not require the statements to be admitted.

The court dismissed the Crown’s appeal and affirmed the findings of the judge that the statements were inadmissible. The court made an order that the statements remain excluded from evidence.