R. v. Henderson, 2010 ABPC 295 (CanLII)
[25] The British Colombia Court of Appeal observed that the purpose of the documentation was not to prove that the accused was a Canadian citizen, a member of a billiard club or video store or to prove a birth date. Rather, the purpose was to prove that the identification items were in the purse with the cocaine. In refusing this ground of appeal challenging the admissibility of the officer’s testimony the British Colombia Court of Appeal relied upon it’s earlier decisions of R. v. Westsummarised at 6 WCB (2d) 424 and R. v. Mills (1978) September 8, CA 770102. In the former decision the Court of Appeal of British Colombia noted that evidence of a store manager from his notes of a computer records review of inventory was admissible and the question of its accuracy was a matter of weight. R. v. Mills concerned evidence from a police witness who had found the accused’s passport in the residence where drugs were located and the accused was arrested. The investigator did not seize the passport but made notes as to it’s content. His evidence was found to be admissible.
[26] The Court of a Appeal of Alberta in R. v. After Dark Enterprises Ltd. 1994 ABCA 360 (CanLII), (1994) 94 C.C.C. (3d) 574 in dealing with a similar issue commented at page 576 as follows:
“The learned trial judge says that the prosecution cannot call any other evidence if real evidence on the same point was available to be seized and was not seized. That extends the best evidence rule far beyond its original purpose, which was simply to avoid fraud and forgery, into a large alteration of practice and procedure in courts today. We do not accept it.”
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire