Afin de miner la crédibilité d'une personne en plaidoirie, cette dernière doit avoir été contre-interrogé à cet effet

R. v. Werkman, 2007 ABCA 130 (CanLII)

Lien vers la décision

[7]               The second and third grounds of appeal relate to the rule in Browne v. Dunn, and can be dealt with together. The rule in Browne v. Dunn requires that counsel put a matter to a witness involving the witness personally if counsel is later going to present contradictory evidence, or is going to impeach the witness’ credibility: R. v. Lyttle, 2004 SCC 5 (CanLII), 2004 SCC 5, [2004] 1 S.C.R 193, 316 N.R. 52 (para. 64). Though it is not necessary to cross-examine upon minor details in the evidence, a witness should be provided with an opportunity to give evidence on “matters of substance” that will be contradicted: R. v. Giroux2006 CanLII 10736 (ON CA), (2006) 210 O.A.C. 50 at para. 46 (C.A.). The purpose of the rule is to ensure that parties and witnesses are treated fairly; it is not a general or absolute rule: Lyttle at para. 65; R. v. Palmer 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 at 781, 30 N.R. 181. The rule also has exceptions.