Appellant: I’ve been advised not to, sir.
Officer: Well, trying, trying to open your eyes to think of other possibilities,
right, cause it’s your decision, right? It’s not my decision whether you give
your side, it’s not anybody else’s decision, it’s yours, right? And I’m telling
you, as a normal person, nobody’s gonna believe that-, what happened to your
finger unless you tell the story. If you decide not to, no one’s gonna believe it
came from anything other than you stabbing somebody.
Officer: So then it comes down to credibility, right? So if you sit here and say
that it didn’t happen at this party, when this guy got stabbed, if that’s not
when it happened and then it gets proven that it is and then you get up and
you say, well, now, I’m gonna tell my story. Now’s the time and place to tell my
story. How many people are gonna believe you then versus who believe you now
when it’s the time, right?
[The appellant had been informed that he had admitted the stabbing to his
girlfriend and that she had given a statement to the police. The appellant had
denied admitting anything, denied doing anything and asserted he would say
Officer: That’s the attitude you’re showing to the victim’s family, right?
They’re gonna watch this come court.
Officer: And a jury’s gonna watch this come court.
Officer: And they’re gonna see you.
[ 16] As noted in R. v. Van Wyk,  O.J. No. 3515, 104 O. T.C.
161 (S.C.J.), at paras. 160-168, police assertions to the effect that
an accused’s credibility is at its highest during a police interview
and that a trial court will see and take a negative view of a refusal
to speak are legally incorrect and undermine the accused’s right
[ 17] In our view, the interviewing officer’s comments, as set out
above, constituted both a threat and an inducement as they suggested negative legal consequences if the appellant failed to speak
and positive consequences if he spoke.
[ 18] Moreover, the combined suggestion that, despite legal
advice, the 19-year-old appellant should make his own decision
about whether to speak and that he would not be believed if he
did not speak during the police interview, improperly undermined
the advice the appellant received from his lawyer.