BREAKING: Murder charge to be dropped against Frederick Charlie who police say confessed to murdering his girlfriend
B.C. Supreme Court Justice ruled on July 7 statements made to police while in custody were not voluntary, can't be used against him
July 15, 2026
In a shocking turn of events for criminal justice, Crown counsel is dropping the second-degree murder charge against Frederick Paul Charlie who confessed to killing his girlfriend on Sq'éwqel (Seabird Island) in 2024.
The family and friends of the victim, who still can't be named for now, may never see justice as Something Worth Reading has learned prosecutors will ask for a stay of proceedings in B.C. Supreme Court on July 20, the day Charlie's trial was set to begin.
“The justice system failed [her] and her children,” the victim’s sister told this reporter in a statement Wednesday.
Very little of the evidence prosecutors have against Charlie had come out in court nor could it be reported on anyway because of standard publication bans prior to trial. But Charlie made more than one statement to police after his arrest, to uniformed officers during interrogation and to an undercover officer placed in his cell. The content of those conversations cannot be reported yet, but Crown applied to have the court deem Charlie’s statements voluntary. This was the subject of a voir dire hearing after which the judge was to consider a defence application to have the statements excluded as a violation of his Charter rights to counsel.
On July 7, B.C. Supreme Court Justice P.K. Shergill ruled against Crown deciding Charlie’s three statements to police while in police custody did not meet the legal test for voluntariness. Because of this decision, there was no need to hear defence’s Charter right-to-counsel application, but she added that if it had been necessary, the statements would have been excluded on that basis.
Involuntariness by a thousand cuts
Did cops push too hard? That question was asked as part of the headline on our story on this case on July 7. The answer appears to be "yes."
To get statements of this kind included as evidence, Crown had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were the product of a free and meaningful choice.
Telling an accused about their right to counsel is also essential. This must be explained to anyone under arrest and that person has to understand that they can contact a lawyer immediately.
The test for voluntariness requires that: the accused has an "operating mind" enough to understand; police don’t make threats or promises in exchange for statements; the person accused of a crime is not kept in oppressive conditions; and there is no so-called "police trickery."
The latter bar is quite high, an example given by the Supreme Court of Canada being that an officer cannot pretend to be a chaplain taking a confession and then use that confession against the person. Police can, however, use undercover officers posing as fellow inmates behind bars or out of custody pretending to be criminal bosses.
As for oppressive conditions, pre-trial custody is no picnic. Surrey Pretrial Centre is described as a terrible place to be held. However, police cannot keep people facing charges in conditions that are too hot or too cold or wet, they cannot be deprived of food or water, and sleep deprivation can be a particularly serious issue.
In deciding Charlie’s statements did not meet the legal test for voluntariness, Justice Shergill did not point to any single act by police during interrogation in custody, rather, she found there was a cumulative effect of degrading and coercive interrogation tactics along with uncertainty about his understanding of his 10(b) Charter right to counsel. There was also Charlie's personal vulnerabilities, which all added up to reasonable doubt that any of his three statements were voluntary.
Because Justice Shergill ruled that the statements were not voluntary, there was no need to hear defence’s Charter right-to-counsel application, but she added that if it was necessary, the statements would have been excluded anyway.
Faint hope for justice
Following the decision on July 7, Crown suggested the trial would still go ahead on July 20. This week, however, Crown notified the family to say that a stay of proceedings would be issued against Charlie on July 20.
If the murder charge is stayed under section 579 of the Criminal Code, which is likely, the Crown then has one year from the date to recommence the proceedings.
If they do not do this by July 20, 2027, the proceedings are deemed “never to have commenced,” which sounds odd but means that he could be charged again down the road if new evidence emerged. It is important to note that a stay of proceedings is not an acquittal, it does not mean an accused has been found not guilty.
There is no statute of limitations on murder or any indictable offence in Canada.
-30-
Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social