The term "person in authority" in the common law confessions rule refers to
The Crown or police.
Someone involved in the criminal justice system.
Someone involved in the arrest, detention, interrogation or prosecution of the accused.
Someone the accused reasonably ought to know will inform the police.
The parents of a child are...
Not generally considered a person of authority.
Not a person of authority unless they have interacted with the police.
A person in authority, as a reasonable person would think they will contact the police.
The criteria for voluntariness are...
(check all that apply)
Whether or not the confession is induced by a promise that things will be better if they confess.
Whether or not the confession is produced by threats or promises.
Whether or not the confession is made by oppression.
Whether or not the confession is made by someone who is deeply upset.
Whether or not the person who makes it has an operating mind.
Whether or not the police engage in trickery that would shock the community conscience.
Whether or not the police engage in disingenuous behaviour.
In order to admit a confession, one of the things the crown needs to show that probative value outweighs prejudicial effect.
According to R v Edwards, in order to make an application under s. 24 of the Charter, you have to show that
Your rights were infringed.
Your rights, or the rights of someone materially related to the charge against you were infringed.
Your rights, or the rights of someone connected to the event of the charge in time and place were infringed.
Evidence can be excluded if a reasonable person would think that admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
In the context of R v Grant, the moral blameworthiness of the police's action is reduced if the state had not other way to get the evidence.
Extenuating circumstances play no role in determining the seriousness of the infringing police conduct.
