Seabird Island man acquitted of murdering a mother of three thanks to illegal police interrogation
With Frederick Paul Charlie’s statements to police ruled inadmissible, Crown had no evidence to present, so judge found him not guilty
July 20, 2026
Courtroom 201 at the Chilliwack Law Courts was full Monday morning as friends and family of 33-year-old Vanessa Terry who was murdered on Sq'éwqel (Seabird Island) in 2024 drove from as far away as Lillooet to hear some very bad news.
There was no justice for the mother of three allegedly killed by her boyfriend Frederick Paul Charlie, and the outcome was actually even worse than was first understood.
After his arrest for the homicide, members of the Lower Mainland Integrated Homicide Investigation Team (IHIT) conducted more than one interview with Charlie while in custody, even planting an undercover officer with him in pretrial custody. Charlie allegedly made several statements to police confessing to the murder, but officers engaged in degrading and coercive interrogation tactics while also failing to properly inform Charlie of his Charter right to counsel.
After a 12-day voir dire to test the voluntariness of his confessions, Justice P.K. Shergill ruled on July 7 that Charlie’s statements did not meet the legal test for voluntariness. That mean the statements were out as evidence, which meant the Crown no longer had a case against him.
Family members told Something Worth Reading that they were informed that the charges against Charlie would have to be dropped, a stay of proceedings.
This was incorrectly reported on July 15 because this is not what happened in court on July 20 when the stay was expected. Rather, with no evidence, Justice Shergill acquitted Charlie of the murder. This outcome is much worse in that a stay of proceedings or a withdrawal of charges would have meant Crown could re-prosecute down the road if more evidence turns up.
An acquittal means this is impossible.
With almost 30 people in the courtroom, mostly friends and family members of Terry as well as supporters, including the president and board members of B.C. Native Women’s Association, the diminutive Charlie was brought to the prisoner’s box wearing standard issue orange sweats, legs shackled with only socks on his feet. His hair was cropped short, he had a goatee and wore black rim glasses. He did not look up at the members of Terry’s family in the gallery as he was brought in.
“As the court may be aware, the Crown will not be calling any evidence on this matter,” prosecutor Scott Quendack told the court.
Justin Dosanjh for the defence then asked that the court return a verdict of not guilty.
Justice Shergill then addressed Charlie.
“This has been a very long time Mr. Charlie,” she said. “In the circumstances, given that the Crown is not calling evidence… I am going to acquit you. You are not guilty. You are free to go.”
And that was it.
Want to support independent journalism?
Consider a one-time donation or subscribe for less than $1 a week so I can continue this work.
Family members and supporters gathered in the court hallway after for several minutes, a sense of dismay, anger and sadness prevailed. The group then gathered on the courthouse steps where B.C. Native Women’s Association president Gena Edwards addressed the group briefly about the disappointing outcome after which there was First Nations drumming and singing.
Speaking with this reporter after that, Edwards said the verdict goes against the 231 calls to justice, the legally binding recommendations coming out of the 2019 National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG).
“My heart goes out to the family of Vanessa Terry especially her children on this acquittal,” Edwards said.
“More needs to be done at the provincial level and the federal level, even the First Nations governments needs to change and make sure those 231 call to justice are taken serious in all matters regarding MMIWG.”
Given the errors made by police in this case, that’s where the main anger and disappointment is focused from Terry’s supporters. Practically speaking, this means an end to any chance of justice for terry because of the acquittal. If Crown or the judge had issued a stay of proceedings, or Crown had withdrawn the charges, or the case ended with a mistrial, a case that ends in a mistrial, those outcomes would not necessarily prevent the Crown from prosecuting the accused again.
An acquittal does.
If, for example, five years down the road a new witness comes forward or DNA evidence is discovered or there is another confession, the Crown cannot lay a fresh murder charge.
Under common law the rule against double jeopardy prevents a second prosecution. Also, section 11(h) of the Charter states that a person who has been acquitted of a crime cannot be tried for the same offence again.
The only way the case could proceed is if the Crown successfully appealed the acquittal if it believes the trial judge made an error of law. If they could show the judge wrongly excluded the confession, or applied the wrong legal test in excluding evidence, an appellate court could order a new trial or reintroduce the confession, but there is no sign Crown will appeal.
-30-
Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social