Did cops push too hard? Judge rules Frederick Charlie’s statements to police to be excluded from evidence in Chilliwack murder trial
Crown counsel required to prove accused’s statements are voluntary: no threats or promises, no bad treatment in custody, no ‘shocking’ deception
July 7, 2026
B.C. Supreme Court Justice P.K. Shergill ruled Tuesday that statements accused murderer Frederick Paul Charlie made to police after his arrest in June 2024 cannot be used by the prosecutor at trial.
Charlie is charged with second-degree murder in connection with the death of his girlfriend on Sq'éwqel (Seabird Island) just east of Agassiz on April 6, 2024. The woman’s name cannot be shared because of a publication ban on her identity.
Charlie was originally to be tried by judge and jury, but has switched to judge alone. A lengthy voir dire hearing was held in March in advance of that trial later in July to consider applications by Crown and defence.
Because of another publication ban, the contents of the applications or evidence taken during the voir dire also cannot be reported as it is essentially a trial within a trial so evidence in advance of full trial needs to be protected.
Essentially, Crown applied to prove Charlie’s statements to police were voluntary so they should be allowed as evidence at trial. Defence made a Charter application to have those statements excluded.
In a decision rendered remotely on Tuesday in B.C. Supreme Court in Chilliwack, Justice Shergill ruled the statements were not voluntary, according to the test and she excluded them from evidence. Because of the exclusion, the test under 10(b) of the Charter was unnecessary.
Want to support independent journalism?
Consider a one-time donation or subscribe for less than $1 a week so I can continue this work.
What the what?
While the details cannot yet be shared, the process can be.
When a person accused of a criminal offence is arrested in Canada and speaks with police, what they say can be used against them later at trial.
But there’s a catch.
Thanks to Hollywood, people often mistake Canadian processes with those of the United States. Many readers will be familiar with so-called Miranda rights: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions.”
In Canada there is no standardized Miranda-style statement read to people under arrest. Police are obliged to get across three points: why a person is being arrested; that they have a right to speak to a lawyer without delay; and that they have the right to remain silent.
The first two are specifically ordained under sections 10(a) and (b) of the Charter, respectively, the right to be informed of the reasons for arrest and the right to retain and instruct counsel “without delay,” and be told that upon arrest.
The way to express the third element, remaining silent, is not set in stone but police need to inform about the right to a lawyer and the need to respect a person’s right to silence. This means police need to tread carefully with an accused when looking for incriminating evidence or a confession.
How is voluntariness measured?
Outside of an accused’s Charter rights regarding arrest and counsel, is the concept of “voluntariness” under common law, which governs whether a statement to police can be used as evidence.
The leading case to determine voluntariness is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Oickle (2000 SCC 38) that lays out four tests to be considered holistically, simply explained:
- No carrots. No sticks. If police make threats or promises in exchange for statements, statements may be excluded from use as evidence against an accused. For example, an officer can’t say “If you confess to the murder, you’ll get a lighter sentence.”
- No torture. “Oppression” is a test assessed to see if an accused was, for example, denied access to food, water, sleep, or held in other terrible conditions. Such treatment can lead to unreliable confessions just as if an accused is questioned too relentlessly and aggressively.
- Are you in there? An “operating mind” is essential for voluntariness. This operation is of the very lowest bar. It is simply, did the accused know they were talking to a police officer and did they know what they said might be used against them. This does not require an accused to be a rocket scientist or even act in their own best interests.
- No rabbits out of hats. So-called police trickery is also not allowed. Where an operating mind is a low bar, however, this is high. Police are allowed to lie to an accused, deceive them, go undercover as a Mr. Big or a plant in a cell. The disallowed police trickery the Supreme Court had in mind is a kind that might “shock the community.” In Oickle, the Supreme Court overturned the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision to set aside the verdict. The high court determined that it was not shocking or unreasonable when police lied about the results of an accused’s polygraph test. Investigators told him that the results were not admissible in court but then lied and told him that he failed the test. This was followed by intense interrogation after which the accused confessed, all of which was deemed OK by the high court. Examples of “shocking” trickery are quoted from then Chief Justice Antonio Lamer's written 1981 Rothman decision: “a police officer pretending to be a chaplain or a legal aid lawyer, or injecting truth serum into a diabetic under the pretense that it was insulin.”
All of which is to say, police in Canada are held to a high standard of human rights and ethics when interviewing accused individuals charged with serious crimes.
Trial to start
Justice Shergill’s decision to exclude Charlie’s statements to police from evidence is by no means fatal to the Crown’s case against him.
The trial is scheduled to start on July 20.
-30-
Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social