The Supreme Court of Canada began hearing arguments Wednesday in a case that seeks to define how police interrogation tactics should square with the charter's long-protected right to silence.

Jagrup Singh, a 31-year-old from Surrey, B.C., is appealing a 2002 conviction for second-degree murder. The case revolves around the question of whether police breached Singh's right to remain silent when they persisted in questioning him about a shooting, even though he repeatedly made it clear that he didn't want to talk.

Singh was accused of firing a handgun through the open door of a bar after being kicked out for fighting in April 2002. The stray bullet struck the head of bystander Rick Lof, a 30-year-old from Langley, B.C.

Singh was arrested days later, but while being questioned by the Surrey RCMP, he repeatedly raised his right to silence.

According to the Supreme Court case summary, Singh told the police that he did not want to talk, that he had nothing to say, that he knew nothing about the shooting, and that he wanted to return to his cell.

The interrogating officers ignored his pleas and pressed on with questioning. Eventually, in the second of two interviews, Singh gave a confession.

Charter right 'not to be compelled' to talk

In 2002, the judge hearing the trial admitted Singh's statements into evidence and a jury convicted him of second-degree murder.

The wrinkle in the case is that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the accused has the right "not to be compelled to be a witness" against himself in criminal proceedings.

Wednesday's appeal case looks at whether the police violated Singh's right to silence.

Singh launched a similar appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal in 2006, arguing that the judge should have excluded his confession from the evidence because he was compelled to give it.

However, the court denied his appeal in June 2006.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in 2007.