R v. S.C.D.Y., 2020 ABCA 134
[63] Counsel complies with the Browne v. Dunn rule if he or she challenges the witness called by a party adverse in interest on “matters of substance on which the party seeks to impeach the witness’ credibility and on which the witness has not had an opportunity of giving an explanation because there has been no suggestion whatsoever that the witness’ story is not accepted”.[58]
[58] The Queen v. Quansah, 2015 ONCA 237, ¶ 81; 323 C.C.C. 3d 191, 207 (emphasis in original). See also The Queen v. Fenlon, 71 Cr. App. R. 307, 313 (1980) per Lord Lane, C.J. (“It is the duty of counsel who intends to suggest that a witness is not telling the truth to make it clear to the witness in cross-examination that he challenges his veracity and to give the witness an opportunity of replying. It need not be done in minute detail, but it is the duty of counsel to make it plain to the witness ... that his evidence is not accepted and in what respects it is not accepted”); McDonagh v. Sunday Newspapers Ltd., [2017] IESC 46, ¶ 59 (“what the rule is truly focused on and what it seeks to achieve is to ensure that evidence intended to be impugned is put in issue in a manner or way, whatever that might be, which conveys to all parties and the relevant witnesses that such evidence is being challenged. Is it in dispute or contention? Is it being contradicted? Simply put, is it in controversy? If so, and if in a manner obvious or known to all, then such is sufficient to ‘put it in issue’. This therefore is the yardstick. How it is done is not the test: the basis for the rule does not demand more”) & D. Paciocco & L. Stuesser, The Law of Evidence 438 (6th ed. 2011) (“In order to comply with the [Browne v. Dunn] rule, counsel is not required to slog though every single detail to be contradicted. The necessary unfairness that triggers the rule only arises when there is a failure to cross-examine on central features or significant matters”).
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire