R. v. Spackman, 2012 ONCA 905
[123] The “defence” of inadequate investigation may be related to but can be discrete from a claim of third party authorship. The decision by an accused to attack the integrity of the police investigation of the offence charged is a permitted, but risky strategy. The risk involved is that, by invoking the strategy, the accused will make relevant, material, and admissible, evidence that would never have seen the light of day if tendered by the Crown as part of its case in-chief: R. v. Dhillon (2002), 2002 CanLII 41540 (ON CA), 166 C.C.C. (3d) 262 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 51; and R. v. Mallory, 2007 ONCA 46, (2007), 217 C.C.C. (3d) 266, at para. 87. Included among the evidence that may be made admissible is investigative hearsay, albeit subject to instructions about its limited use: Dhillon, at para. 51; Mallory, at para. 92; R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144, at para. 184; and R. v. Van, 2009 SCC 22, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 716, at para. 33. To deny the Crown the right to adduce evidence to rebut a claim of inadequate investigation, as with the “defence” of third party authorship, would be to leave an entirely distorted and incomplete picture with the jury.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire