R v Stennett

R. v. Stennett

2018 ONCJ 182
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice Joseph F. Kenkel | March 20, 2018

Background

Lerrell Stennett left a nightclub after celebrating his brother's birthday, driving a black Jaguar with two passengers. He drove off the roadway, hit a hydro pole, then a light pole, and crashed into several large parked vehicles. Stennett was badly injured, as was his front seat passenger, while the third passenger received less serious injuries.

One month and three weeks after the accident, Detective Constable Rorke called Stennett to arrange an interview. They agreed to meet at Stennett's home in St. Catharines on October 11th, 2016, since he was still recovering from his injuries. Two officers arrived in plain clothes but carrying sidearms and badges, and conducted a 38-minute videotaped interview in Stennett's bedroom about the circumstances of the crash.

Issues

1. Was Stennett's statement to police voluntary and admissible in evidence?
2. Was Stennett detained during the interview, requiring Charter section 10 rights to counsel?

The Voluntariness Challenge

Stennett's lawyer argued the statement should be excluded because he wasn't properly informed about the potential charges he faced. The officer told Stennett he was investigating "impaired driving" but didn't mention the full potential charges of "Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm" or "Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm." The defence also pointed out that Stennett's aunt had told him she heard an officer at the hospital say "alcohol wasn't a factor" in the accident.

The court applied the test from R. v. Oickle, requiring a broad and contextual assessment of all circumstances. Justice Kenkel found the statement was clearly voluntary: Stennett chose the time and location, was explicitly told the interview was "completely voluntary," was informed he could stop at any time, and was warned that anything he said could be used as evidence against him. The judge found that while it would have been better to mention "bodily harm," Stennett understood the serious nature of the accident and had sufficient appreciation of his potential jeopardy.

The Detention Analysis

The defence argued Stennett was psychologically detained, pointing to the fact that armed officers came to his bedroom and that he was given informal Charter warnings about his right to counsel. The court disagreed, finding no evidence of detention. Stennett had agreed to speak with police, chose the time and location, and was explicitly told he was "not arrested" and "not detained." The officers didn't block doorways, used no physical contact, threats, or trickery. The informal Charter warnings were given as good practice to ensure the statement was truly voluntary, not because detention was occurring.

Key Takeaway

Police don't need to spell out every possible charge variation when taking a voluntary statement, as long as the suspect understands the general nature of the potential criminal investigation.

This case shows that courts will look at the overall circumstances rather than technical details when assessing voluntariness. The key factors were that Stennett clearly understood he didn't have to speak, knew his words could be used against him, and was free to stop the interview at any time.