Standard police interrogation procedure

We regularly see standard police interrogation procedure that in our opinion would shock the good thinking people of Canada if they only knew about it. An Alberta court decision which provides a good example of standard police interrogation procedure has just made the news and it’s worth a read. See: R. v. Chapple, 2012 ABPC 229

The decision is interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which is as a cautionary example of how the police can obtain a false confession.

Cops and Government dislike lawyers because lawyers help people

In our day to day practice it is clear to us that the police and the Government are doing everything they can to undermine the position of lawyers in our society. Until people are in trouble, generally they fail to understand why we have lawyers and why lawyers, on both sides of the case, are so essential to the preservation of the freedoms we enjoy. By attempting to get lawyers out of the equation, the Government in BC is attempting to take away our rights. Sadly, fail to understand the long-term damage of their decisions.

It’s important to remember that a great number of people who work for the Government don’t think this way. Same goes for many police officers. Each individual has their own opinions, their own views and deals with their own problems. What we see, however, is an overall trend. People who are in higher positions of authority in both the police and the Government tend to be more zealous in their anti-lawyer sentiment. And it doesn’t bode well for our society.

Cops trying to undermine good legal advice

Recorded in the R. v. Chapple decision are some of the things the police say and do when they are interrogating a person to try and undermine the relationship the person has with their lawyer. Sadly, recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada have bolstered the police in using these methods. Here, from R. v. Chapple is what the police now typically do during an interrogation to undermine the relationship between the client and the lawyer:

Dissuade the accused from remaining silent.
When the accused seeks to exercise their right to remain silent, tell the accused, that’s what all lawyers say and they are not in your situation.
When an accused says they want to remain silent no matter how many times that sentiment is expressed by the accused, continue to question the accused.
Advise the accused that the lawyer’s advice will not make a difference.
Interrupt the accused when they try to express that they have a right to remain silent so as to get their mind off of that issue.
Keep talking as long as it takes to get the answers to questions.
Suggest scenarios to the accused that fit with the police theory and when the accused disagrees with these scenarios continue to interrupt them.
Talk over the accused when they disagree with what is being suggested.
Engage in long monologues to try to control the direction of the interview and prevent the accused from thinking about not talking to the police.
Continue the interview for lengthy periods of time to exhaust and confuse the accused.
Point out inconsistencies in the accused’s memory to cause them to question their memory.
Confront the accused after speaking to them for a lengthy period of time.
Bring strong evidence at the confrontation stage that conflicts with the accused’s version of events.

This is what the police are doing, an example of how they’ve been trained and what they think is appropriate. Should we have confidence in any confession obtained during such an interrogation? Is it right for the police to make any attempt to undermine the legal advice a person has obtained from their lawyer?