翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ R v Morgentaler (1993) ・ R v Morris; Anderton v Burnside ・ R v Morrisey ・ R v Motomane ・ R v Mubila ・ R v Nedrick ・ R v Negus ・ R v Neil ・ R v Nette ・ R v Noble ・ R v Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society ・ R v Nur ・ R v O'Connor ・ R v O'Grady ・ R v Oakes ・ R v Oickle ・ R v Owen ・ R v Pamajewon ・ R v Pan; R v Sawyer ・ R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc ・ R v Park ・ R v Parks ・ R v Patel ・ R v Patrick ・ R v Peacock ・ R v Pearson; Ex parte Sipka ・ R v Penguin Books Ltd ・ R v Perka ・ R v Peverett ・ R v Plant Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク R v Oickle ： ウィキペディア英語版 R v Oickle ''R v Oickle'', 2000 SCC 38, () 2 S.C.R. 3, is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the common law rule for confessions. Though the ''Charter'' remains in force for confessions made while in custody, the common law rule still applies in all circumstances. The majority outlined factors to determine whether a confession is voluntary. ==Background== Richard Oickle was under investigation by police for a series of fires. He voluntarily underwent a polygraph test. The police told him he had failed and began to question him. He eventually confessed to starting the fires. Oickle was told he was under arrest and brought to the police station for further questioning. He was put in a cell near 3am, around 9 hours after his confession. The police talked to him again at 6am asking him to provide a re-enactment, which he did. At trial he was convicted of arson. The Court of Appeal found that the confession was inadmissible and overturned the conviction. And then after review from the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Iacobucci, writing for the majority, found that the confession was admissible. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Oickle」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.