Case tests whether accused’s confession voluntary

Law360 Canada (December 21, 2023, 8:26 AM EST) --

John Hill

Mitchell Maguire and his buddy, Connor Steinhausen, were both very drunk when they were returning from a bar in late April 2022 and crashed Maguire’s car into a tree. A bystander reported the accident to police and described Steinhausen's clothing and his hair colour to identify the driver.

Police arrested Steinhausen. He was handcuffed, and a search incidental to the arrest was conducted. Only after that, Maguire told police, “You have the wrong guy. That guy wasn’t driving. He’s not the driver.”

The police subsequently arrested Maguire, who, while being driven to the station, made numerous admissions against his interest. The judgment sets out these statements in a decision containing the most expletives one is ever likely to read in a reported case. His utterances were recorded in the police cruiser, where he repeatedly admits to police that he f**d up.

By the time the matter came on for trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Maguire had realized that he had not been appropriately cautioned at the time of arrest and argued that his “confessions” constituted an abrogation of his Charter rights. He moved that any statements and the subsequent breathalyzer readings should be removed from evidence. The case of R. v. Maguire 2023 ONCJ 467 left it to Judge Rohan Michael Robinson to decide whether it was the police or Maguire who f**d up worst.

Maguire alleged Charter rights violations, including ss. 10(a) and 10(b). The police failed to advise him he was being detained while being investigated about the motor vehicle collision and failed to provide him with his right to counsel. Moreover, Maguire argued that the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that his statements were voluntary.

Realizing that Maguire’s successful application could see the case dismissed, Crown counsel submitted that Maguire was never detained but was merely delayed by the police, who were asking exploratory questions. They argued that Maguire had been cautioned, and he clearly understood that anything he said could be recorded and used against him at trial. The police could demonstrate this by replaying the in-car camera (ICC) footage, where he made statements with full and voluntary appreciation of what he was saying.

The decision separates the events at the car crash scene from the utterances made while Maguire was being transported to the police station.

Maguire was detained at the accident site when the police ordered him to stay where he was and not move. His liberty was thereby constrained, and he became entitled to the Charter rights protections associated with detention. The ICC footage proves the police did not inform Maguire of the reason for the detention in breach of his s. 10(a) Charter right.

When Maguire was told not to move, he was not advised without delay of his right to retain and instruct counsel, a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter right. The police's direction to Maguire not to stay put amounted to an investigative detention that triggered his Charter rights. At that time, Maguire was in a vulnerable position. The Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Grant [2009] S.C.J. No. 32 that a person whose liberty has been curtailed has the right to choose to make a statement and also has the right to counsel. Further, under section 10(b) of the Charter, police must hold off on investigation until the right to counsel is satisfied (R. v. Suberu [2009] S.C.J. No. 33.) At the scene, police messed up.

The situation when he was being driven to the police station was different. He was told not to speak without the assistance of counsel, and he was warned of the use that could be made of voluntary statements. Even though Maguire was visibly and audibly intoxicated, he remained conscious.

He expressed his remorse for impaired driving, albeit using language not suitable for prime time. It was held that although his utterances were closely connected to the violations at the crash site, they were admissible. Maguire was visibly and audibly intoxicated. He understood the numerous cautions given to him. He was aware that he did not have to provide any information. He understood that it could be used as evidence against him. The Crown had, therefore, discharged its burden of proving the voluntariness of all of Maguire's statements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The police were entitled to rely upon the accused's utterances in forming grounds for arrest, as the arrest and subsequent breath tests were based on reasonable grounds.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.   

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.