Problem
Read the following case summary of R. V. Oickle (2000) SCC 38, and answer the question
The case in question involves Mr. Richard Floyd Oickle, who was questioned by police regarding a series of eight fires that occurred between February 1994 and April 1995. These fires involved four buildings and two vehicles in the Waterville, Nova Scotia community. During the interrogation, Mr. Oickle agreed to take a polygraph test. The officers informed him that the results of the test would not be admissible in court, but any confessions he made would be. After a prolonged and intense interrogation, he confessed to setting seven of the eight fires. At trial, he was charged with seven counts of arson and his confessions were deemed to be voluntary and admissible. As a result, he was convicted on all counts. The case was later appealed, and the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal excluded Mr. Oickle's confessions as involuntary and inadmissible, resulting in his acquittal. However, the case was reviewed again and Judge Arbour determined that the original conviction should be restored as the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal had applied the incorrect standard of review when assessing the voluntariness of Mr. Oickle's confession, ultimately leading to his conviction.
What precedent did the case of R. V. Oickle (2000) SCC 38 establish?