A British Columbia man accused of murdering his common-law wife has been acquitted after a judge threw out a confession she says was tainted by the suspect’s “degrading and humiliating” treatment by police. The judge found homicide investigators forced Frederick Charlie, an Indigenous man, to change clothes in front of officers who knew he wasn’t wearing underwear and placed him in a cell with an undercover officer who deliberately urinated on himself in front of Charlie. Charlie’s subsequent statements to police about the April 2024 killing of Vanessa Terry near Agassiz, B.C., were ruled inadmissible by the judge earlier this month, and the ruling was released on Wednesday. The B.C. Prosecution Service said Charlie was found not guilty on Monday in his judge-only trial after the Crown called no evidence. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Palbinder Shergill ruled that Charlie’s treatment by officers of the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team at the Chilliwack RCMP detachment in June 2024 unlawfully tainted his confession to interrogators. Shergill ruled on July 7 that the confession was inadmissible after Charlie claimed his Charter rights had been violated. “Charlie’s personal circumstances form an important part of the context in which the voluntariness of his statements must be assessed,” the judge wrote. “He has a limited level of formal education and is not a sophisticated individual in his interactions with the criminal justice system.” The judge found the investigators’ decision to have an undercover officer urinate on himself while lying close to Charlie “defies logic,” and heightened the “distasteful conditions” of his detention. The ruling said Charlie was then moved to a different cell with a second undercover officer, in a tactic used in other cases to get suspects to talk when they have previously chosen to remain silent in formal interrogations. The judge found police deprived Charlie of sleep, and created an “environment that was cumulatively oppressive” and “distasteful” in their zeal to get him to confess, which undermined his ability to meaningfully choose to speak with police. “The only logical inference is that the police persisted to interrogate Mr. Charlie beyond the point of fatigue because they believed that this would increase their chances of getting a confession,” the ruling said. “Persistent police questioning in the face of repeated assertions of the right to silence can raise a ‘strong argument’ that any answers the accused subsequently gave were not freely given.” Justin Dosanjh, Charlie’s defence lawyer, said on Wednesday that the “principal concern is ensuring that our clients are treated fairly while in police custody and their rights are respected.” He said the rules surrounding voluntariness of statements given to police “operate as a safeguard to ensure that accused persons are protected while in custody.” Dosanjh said the judge’s ruling tossing out the confession statement outlined the “oppressive” conditions his client faced. “The decision is detailed, comprehensive, and it does speak for itself,” he said. The Integrated Homicide Investigation Team did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday. This report by Darryl Greer, The Canadian Press, was first published July 22, 2026.
