In R. v. Oickle, the Supreme Court ruled there had to be some restrictions on the inducements made by the police but also that courts "should be wary not to unduly limit police discretion."

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

In R. v. Oickle, the Supreme Court of Canada indeed recognized the need for restrictions on police inducements during interrogations to prevent false confessions, while also cautioning against overly restricting police discretion in a way that could hinder effective law enforcement.

In R V Oickle, the Supreme Court Ruled There Had to Be