Le témoignage non contraint d'un accusé peut être utilisé contre lui sans restriction, alors que son témoignage forcé peut seulement être utilisé s'il n'est pas incriminant

R. v. H.P., 2022 ONCA 419

Lien vers la décision

[37]      The court held that the accused’s discovery evidence was statutorily compellable and therefore compelled for the purposes of the application of s. 13 of the Charter: Nedelcu, at para. 1. However, there was no prohibition on using his non-incriminating discovery evidence for impeachment purposes: Nedelcu, at para. 28. Section 13 only protects against the use of incriminating evidence, not non-incriminating evidence: Nedelcu, at para. 29.

[38]      The result of the decisions in Henry and Nedelcu on the application of s. 13 of the Charter is that the accused’s non-compelled previous evidence can be used against him for any purpose, while his compelled previous evidence can also be used if it is not incriminating.

[39]      The effect for the appellant’s case is that, because the appellant’s evidence on the voir dire was not compelled, pursuant to Darrach, the trial judge was entitled to make use of it in her analysis of his credibility and to draw an inference of guilt.