Revue des principes applicables à la crédibilité et à l'identification / Moyens de faire la preuve de l'identification

R. c. Serafin, 2013 QCCQ 3012 (CanLII)

Lien vers la décision

[24] Identification and credibility are at the heart of this case.

[25] First, the Court must base its credibility analysis on the Supreme Court test in R. v. W.(D.). Thus, if the Court believes the evidence of the accused, it must acquit him. If the Court does not believe the testimony of the accused, but his defence raises a reasonable doubt, the Court must also acquit him. If the defence does not raise a doubt, the Court must still ask itself, on the basis of the balance of the evidence it does accept, whether the Crown has proven each of the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

[26] To determine the credibility of witnesses, the trier of fact naturally strives to assess their sincerity, the accuracy of their observations or statements and the faithfulness of their memory based on their evidence, their behaviour, and the similarities and differences in the evidence as a whole. It is important to ascertain whether witnesses try in good faith to state the truth, whether they are sincere and frank, or whether they have biases or are reluctant and evasive.

[27] It is worth recalling that the Court need not choose between two versions.

[28] As regards identification, three types are involved in this case: (1) visual identification by a witness; (2) identification by means of a videotape on which the theft was caught; (3) identification by circumstantial evidence. Specific rules govern each of these types of identification evidence.

[29] The Court summarized as follows some of the applicable principles in R. v. Souligny, a decision that was upheld by the Court of Appeal:

[20] As concerns the rule of law applicable to matters of visual identification evidence, the Court must be wary of the dangers inherent in this type of evidence. The trial judge must consider not only the strengths of the evidence, but also its weaknesses. It must take into account the risks of contamination associated with the possibility of a third party's having suggested that the accused could be the thief. In short, it must examine the objective reliability of the identification evidence.

[21] With regard to identification evidence based on the viewing of the videotape of a theft, the Court must again demonstrate great caution. The Courts have recognized the importance and usefulness of videotapes in search of the truth during criminal trials. Such evidence can serve to establish either the innocence or the guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court established that, because a video camera records accurately all that it perceives, videotape evidence can present such very clear and convincing evidence of identification that triers of fact can use it as the sole basis for the identification of the accused before them as the perpetrator of the crime.. To arrive at that conclusion, the tape must be of good quality and provide a clear image of the events and the perpetrator of the crime. "In the course of their deliberations, triers of fact will make their assessment of the weight that should be accorded the evidence of the videotape just as they assess the weight of the evidence given by viva voce testimony".
[30] With respect to circumstantial evidence as identification evidence, the Supreme Court clearly pointed out in R. v. Morin the importance for triers of fact to conduct a cumulative examination of the evidence as a whole, to pool the evidence. The prosecution does not have to prove every fact beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, it must prove each of the essential elements of the offence, including the identity of the offender, beyond a reasonable doubt. Our Superior Court determined that identity can be established through circumstantial evidence—evidence flowing from a set of facts that, when considered separately, are not significant but that, when taken together, lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty. Thus, triers of fact must be convinced not only that the circumstances are consistent with the accused's guilt, but also that the circumstances are such that they are inconsistent with any logical conclusion other than guilt. Judges must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's guilt is the only logical inference that can be made on the basis of the facts proved.