Extrait du Watts Manual of Criminal Evidence (2006) sur le cadre applicable au contre-interrogatoire d'un témoin à l'aide de sa déclaration antérieure

T.J.P. v. R., 2007 NBQB 12

Lien vers la décision

[11]  In his text, Watts Manual of Criminal Evidence, 2006 Edition, Carswell, at topic heading 20.03, Justice David Watt summarizes the law in this regard as follows:

 

A frequent method of impeachment at  common law was the unrestricted right to cross-examine a witness called by the opposing party on a prior statement.  There was  no requirement that the cross-examiner demonstrate inconsistency or obtain leave from the presiding judge preliminary to commencing the cross-examination.  The prior statement must be that of the witness who was being cross-examined,  not the statement of someone else.

 

Sections 10 and 11  C.E.A. enact the  procedure to be followed when a witness is cross-examined on prior statements and the manner in which the statements may be proven upon denial.  In the usual course, the statements may consist of interviews by police or private investigators, evidence given at preliminary inquiry or other proceedings and, in some instances, examinations for discovery in related civil proceedings.

 

Under  C.E.A. s. 10 there is  no requirement that the statement upon which cross-examination takes place be "inconsistent" with the witness' testimony.  The statement must be in a particular form, however:

 

         i.  in writing;

         ii. reduced to writing;

         iii.recorded on audio tape;

         iv. recorded on video tape; or

         v. recorded otherwise.

 

The section does  not require that the statement be produced to the witness as a condition precedent to cross-examination upon it.  Where it is intended to contradict the witness, however, the witness' attention must be drawn to the relevant portions of the statement that are to be used in contradiction.  Where the witness  admits having made the statement,  no  extrinsic evidence need be adduced to prove it.  Where the witness does  not  admit having made the statement, the cross-examiner may prove it otherwise. 

 

Section 11  C.E.A. applies to former statements of a witness,  not recorded in a manner described in  C.E.A. s. 10, which are  inconsistent with the witness' testimony on the same subject-matter, and  not distinctly admitted by the witness.  The section sets out the procedure to be followed to prove the statement.  Preliminary to proof, however, the cross-examiner must:

 

         i.  mention to the witness  sufficient circumstances when       making the statement to designate the relevant occasion;   and

 

         ii.  ask the witness whether s/he made the statement.

 

Without evidence of adoption, or proof of the matters necessary to have the prior statement received as substantive evidence, statements proven under  C.E.A. ss. 10 and 11 are of limited evidentiary value.  Limiting instructions are required.