R v O'Neill

The appellant, Jody Michelle O'Neill, appealed against her conviction for the attempted murder of her husband. The primary issue was whether the evidence of a recorded conversation between the appellant and Lynne Monica Lally, a friend and co-worker who was acting on behalf of the police, should have been admitted. The appellant argued that her privilege against self-incrimination was infringed when Lally, at the instigation of the police, engaged her in conversation to obtain incriminating admissions, which were then recorded. The appellant contended that this conduct was unfair and that the evidence should not have been admitted. The court considered the principles of admissibility and the discretionary rejection of admissible evidence in criminal trials. It was noted that the discretionary rejection of admissible evidence in criminal trials is a general power exercised by trial judges to ensure a fair trial. The court discussed the common law discretion to exclude confessional evidence and the exercise of that discretion in the context of unfairness and reliability. The court concluded that while the conduct of the police was not improper, it was unfair to the appellant to receive evidence of her recorded statements to Lally at her trial. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered. The court also addressed the issue of the admissibility of fresh evidence and the sentence imposed on the appellant.