Comment le Poursuivant doit se comporter à l'égard des témoins afin d'éviter la contamination de leur témoignage

R. v. Spence, 2011 ONSC 2406

Lien vers la décision

[26]           The Kaufman Commission in my view performed a service to the practice of criminal law by addressing this aspect, the potential for witness contamination before trial by police and/or Crown, with a series of sensible guidelines which emphasize that it is the evidence of the witness that is to go before the jury and not the evidence as the prosecution may want it filtered through other items in its case. The Crown Manual, issued in draft form in 1999 in answer to the Commission Report and regularly used by most Crown prosecutors, also addresses, in part, guidelines for the conduct of witness interviews. Both include much the same points. I will use the ones from the Kaufman Report here.

Recommendation 103:  Prevention of contamination of witnesses through information conveyed.

 

Police officers should be specifically instructed on the dangers of unnecessarily communicating information (known to them) to a witness, where such information may colour that witness’ account of events. 

 

Recommendation 107:  Conduct of Crown interviews.

 

Earlier in this Chapter, I have noted the dilemma facing Crown attorneys when preparing witnesses for trial.  On the one hand, counsel should not be suggestive, and should not try to dovetail the evidence of a number of witnesses to make a perfect whole.  On the other hand, counsel may understandably wish, in fairness to a witness and with a view to ascertaining the true facts, to advise the witness of conflicting evidence in order to invite comment and reflection. 

 

I have previously suggested guidelines respecting the conduct of interviews.  I reiterate them here. 

 

(a)   Counsel should generally not discuss evidence with witnesses collectively.

(b)   A witness’s memory should be exhausted, through questioning and through, for example, the use of the witness’ own statements or notes, before any reference is made (if at all) to conflicting evidence.

(c)   The witness’ recollection should be recorded by counsel in writing.  It is sometimes advisable that the interview be conducted in the presence of an officer or other person, depending on the circumstances. 

(d)   Questioning the witness should be non-suggestive.

(e)   Counsel may then choose to alert the witness to conflicting evidence and invite comment.

(f)     In doing so, counsel should be mindful of the dangers associated with this practice.

(g)   It is wise to advise the witness that it is his or her own evidence that is desired, that the witness is not simply to adopt the conflicting evidence in preference to the witness’ own honest and independent recollection and that he or she is, of course, free to reject the other evidence.  This is no less true if several other witnesses have given conflicting evidence.

(h)   Under no circumstances should counsel tell the witness that he or she is wrong. 

(i)      Where the witness changes his or her anticipated evidence, the new evidence should be recorded in writing.

(j)     Where a witness is patently impressionable or highly suggestible, counsel may be well advised not to put conflicting evidence to the witness, in the exercise of discretion.

(k)   Facts which are obviously uncontested or uncontestable may be approached in another way.  This accords with common sense. 

[27]           The recommendations of the Kaufman Commission have had an impact on many phases of criminal law practice since the report issued in 1998.  That impact has occurred up to the highest level of the court system.  The Supreme Court of Canada has approved several practice changes based on the Kaufman Commission Report.  The areas affected so far have been in the in-court caution and treatment of evidence of jailhouse informants (R. v. Brooks, [2000] S.C.C. 11 at paras. 81-83); the importance of complete neutrality of expert witnesses and the dangers of the expert as advocate, including the occurrence of several wrongful convictions as a result (R. v. D.D., 2000 SCC 43 (CanLII), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275 at paras. 48-53); the treatment and potentially misleading quality of post-offence conduct and demeanour evidence and how it can be usefully introduced in circumscribed situations (R. v. White, [2011] S.C.C. 13, at paras. 44-60 and 141-145); the Vetrovec caution again and the proven wrongful convictions resulting from reliance on jailhouse informant evidence despite warnings to juries (R. v. Khela, [2009] S.C.C. 4); and the importance of the Crown’s role remaining objective and distinct from that of the police (though remaining co-operative) and the instances of wrongful convictions found by the reports of the Royal Commission regarding Donald Marshall and the Kaufman Commission Report resulting from “the Crown’s failure of objectivity throughout the process”, (R. v. Regan, [2002] S.C.C. 12, at paras. 66-70).

[28]           The impact upon,  and assistance of the Kaufman Commission to, courts and the provinces’ Attorneys General in formulating approaches to several areas of systemic abuse is demonstrable at all appeal levels and in administrative and practice reforms since 1998.