by Gino Arcaro M.Ed., B.Sc.

R. v. Tshitenge Masuku (2011)

Experience versus inexperience. The balance of power with respect to an interrogator and a suspect has become one of the major factors that affect the voluntariness of a confession and its admissibility. The problem facing the police is that the experience gap is inherent to most interrogations; the imbalance of experience-power is hard to avoid. I will devote as many articles as possible toward this subject because it will continue to be used as defence argument at a voir dire.

Some of my past articles have shown examples of how the power imbalance has caused a confession to be excluded as evidence. This case is different. It deals with an example of an admissible confession where the defence argued for exclusion based on the potential effect of an experienced detectives tactics on overcoming the will of a "younger, despondent, tired, cold, afraid, unwell accused who attempted on many occasions to remain silent and was refused his request to return to his cell... the defence paints a picture of a fragile young man, pitted against a veteran police detective and accordingly, contends that the statement should be excluded." This quote represents the type of defence arguments police can expect in the future.

This case is one point-of-reference example of a failed defence. It's part of my ongoing research to help police officers find a strategic solution to the investigative problem of "power imbalance."