La décision ultime à savoir si l'accusé témoignera ou non pour sa défense est une décision qui lui appartient exclusivement à ce dernier (après avoir reçu les conseils de son avocat à ce sujet)

Ben Hariz c. R., 2019 QCCA 267

Lien vers la décision

•         Décision de ne pas témoigner

[35]        Finalement, l’appelant reproche à l’avocat d’avoir pris unilatéralement la décision de ne pas le faire témoigner lors de son procès et d’avoir omis de l’informer quant aux conséquences de ce choix.

[36]        Il est vrai que la décision de témoigner ou non en est une que l’avocat doit discuter avec son client et au sujet de laquelle il doit obtenir des instructions[17]. La question est de savoir qui a pris la décision. À cet égard, le juge Doherty de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario rappelle la prudence avec laquelle les allégations d’un appelant doivent être considérées :

[139] While counsel owes an obligation to advise his client as to whether he or she should testify, the ultimate determination must be made by the client: G.B.D., supra, at p. 300; M. Proulx & D. Layton, Ethics and Canadian Criminal Law (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001) at pp. 114-30. If the appellant can show that it was trial counsel and not the appellant who decided that the appellant would not testify, and that the appellant would have testified had he understood that it was his decision, it seems to me that it must be accepted that his testimony could have affected the result, thereby establishing that a miscarriage of justice occurred: see R. v. Moore (2002), 2002 SKCA 30 (CanLII), 163 C.C.C. (3d) 343 at 371 (Sask. C.A.). The crucial question becomes – who made the decision?

[140] The appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that trial counsel and not the appellant decided that the appellant would not testify. In determining whether the appellant has met that onus, I bear in mind the strong presumption of competence in favour of counsel. Counsel was an experienced criminal lawyer with over twenty years in practice.

[141] The appellant also has a very strong motive to fabricate the claim that he was denied the right to decide whether to testify. The appellant is no longer presumed innocent. He makes his allegation against trial counsel as a convicted felon facing a lengthy penitentiary term. No doubt, the appellant understands that if he can convince the court that his own lawyer denied him the opportunity to testify, he will receive a new trial. Common sense dictates a cautious approach to allegations against trial lawyers made by convicted persons who are seeking to avoid lengthy jail terms. It must also be recognized that the confidential nature of the relationship between a lawyer and his client can make it easy for the client to make all kinds of unfounded allegations against his former lawyer.[18]

[Caractères gras ajoutés]