Le défaut d'aborder certains sujets en contre-interrogatoire peut affecter la crédibilité du témoin et de sa version

R. c. Robert, 2014 QCCQ 4415

Lien vers la décision

[32]        Les Tribunaux supérieurs ont déjà considéré à plusieurs reprises que ce défaut de contre-interrogatoire peut affecter la crédibilité du témoin et de sa version.  La Cour d'appel d'Ontario s'exprime notamment comme suit:  R. c. Paris[5].

[22]         Where a witness is not cross-examined on matters which are of significance to the facts in issue, and the opposing party then leads evidence which contradicts that witness on those issues, the trier of fact may take the failure to cross-examine into consideration in assessing the credibility of that witness and the contradictory evidence offered by the opposing party.  The effect of the failure to challenge a witness’s version of events on significant matters that are later contradicted in evidence offered by the opposing party is not controlled by a hard and fast legal rule, but depends on the circumstances of each case:  R. v. Palmer 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), (1979), 50 C.C.C. (2d) 193 at 209-210 (S.C.C.);  R. v. H. (L.M.) (1994), 39 B.C.A.C. 241 at 255 (C.A.);  R. v. Verney reflex, (1993), 1993 CanLII 14688 (ON CA), 87 C.C.C. (3d) 363 at 375-76 (Ont. C.A.);  R. v. K.(O.G.) 1994 CanLII 8742 (BC CA), (1994), 28 C.R. (4^th) 129 at 131 (B.C. C.A.);  R. v. Letourneau and Tremblay 1994 CanLII 445 (BC CA), (1994), 87 C.C.C. (3d) 481 at 522-23 (B.C. C.A.); R. v. McNeill, supra, at 565;  A. Mewett, Witnesses, 2d ed., looseleaf (Toronto:  Carswell, 1999) at 2-32 to 2-34.

[24]         The connection between the failure to cross-examine a complainant on significant matters and the accused’s credibility seems to me to be straightforward.  In discussing the “costs” of the failure to cross-examine, Professor Mewett puts it this way in his text, supra at 2-32:

… The cost is how much credence a fact finder will give to evidence that is introduced for the first time after the witness whose testimony is now being questioned has finished testifying and who no longer has an opportunity to tell his or her side of the story.  As such, it may be unwise not to cross-examine an opposing witness when he or she is on the stand if it is intended to contradict that witness’s evidence. …  The trier of fact may well wonder why there was no cross-examination, and take that into account in determining what weight to give to the contradictory testimony.

[33]        Voir aussi R. c. Dexter[6], et R. c. Drydgen[7], etc.