R v Dick

R. v. Dick

[1947] CanLII 12 (ON CA)
Ontario Court of Appeals — Robertson C.J.O., Henderson, Laidlaw, Hogg and Aylesworth JJ.A. | January 21, 1947

Background

Evelyn Dick was charged with murdering her husband John Dick in Hamilton on March 6, 1946. The marriage was troubled — they'd separated after just a few months, and John had moved out to board with Mrs. Kammerer. On the day he disappeared, John was supposed to report for his shift as a streetcar motorman at 4 p.m. but never showed up. Ten days later, children found his dismembered torso on Hamilton Mountain.

Police arrested Evelyn on March 19th and held her in custody. Over the next three weeks, they obtained seven different statements from her — some after charging her with vagrancy, others with no charges at all. The Crown relied heavily on her final statement of April 12th, where she claimed William Bohozuk shot John while all three were driving in a borrowed car. At trial, she was convicted of murder with a recommendation for mercy.

Issues

1. Were the appellant's statements to police properly admitted as voluntary confessions?
2. Did the trial judge properly instruct the jury on the law of parties to an offence under section 69 of the Criminal Code?

The Confession Problem

The Court of Appeal found serious problems with how police obtained Dick's statements. Some were taken without any caution whatsoever. Others came after police charged her with vagrancy — but then immediately started questioning her about the murder. Chief Justice Robertson was scathing about this tactic: "It seems to me to be an abuse of the process of the criminal law to use the purely formal charge of a trifling offence, upon which there is no real intention to proceed, as a cover for putting the person charged under arrest, and obtaining from that person incriminating statements."

The Court was particularly troubled by the final April 12th statement. Dick's lawyer had previously told her to "keep her mouth shut," and she'd told police she intended to follow that advice. But Sergeant Preston, who knew her family and had cultivated a friendship with her, used that relationship to get her talking again without any proper warning. The Court found this was an unfair advantage that made the statement inadmissible.

The Jury Instruction Error

Even if the statements had been properly admitted, the Court found the trial judge failed to properly explain the law. Under section 69 of the Criminal Code, someone can be guilty of murder as a party even if they didn't pull the trigger — but only if they aided, abetted, counselled or procured the killing. The judge read the section but didn't explain how it applied to Dick's specific situation. Based on her own statements, she might have been merely a passive spectator to the shooting, which wouldn't make her guilty under section 69.

Key Takeaway

Police cannot use minor charges as a fishing expedition to get statements about more serious crimes.

When police give you a caution about one charge, that warning doesn't cover questioning about completely different offences. And once you've clearly indicated you want to follow your lawyer's advice to remain silent, police cannot use personal relationships or tricks to get you talking again without proper warnings.