Preliminary Inquiry Evidence: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
m Text replacement - "\{\{fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "fr:$1"
 
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[fr:Preuve_de_l%27enquête_préliminaire]]
{{Currency2|January|2020}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPrelim}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPrelim}}
==General Principles==
==General Principles==
Line 18: Line 20:
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 243.
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 243.
{{Annotation}}
{{Annotation}}
|[{{CCCSec|540}} CCC]
|{{CCCSec2|540}}
|{{NoteUp|540|1}}
|{{NoteUp|540|1}}
|{{terms-
|{{terms-
| [[Definitions_of_Parties,_Persons,_Places_and_Organizations#Accused_or_Offender|"accused" (s. 2)]]
| [[Definitions_of_Parties,_Persons,_Places_and_Organizations#Accused_or_Offender|"accused" (s. 2)]]
| [[Definition_of_Judicial_Officers_and_Offices#.22Justice.22|[[Definition_of_Judicial_Officers_and_Offices#.22Justice.22|"justice" (s. 2)]]]]
| [[Definition_of_Judicial_Officers_and_Offices#.22Justice.22|"justice" (s. 2)]]
}}
}}
}}
}}
Line 33: Line 35:
<ref>
<ref>
See
See
{{CanLIIRP|Arcuri|51xv|2001 SCC 54 (CanLII)|[2001] 2 SCR 828}}{{perSCC|McLachlin CJ}}<br>  
{{CanLIIRP|Arcuri|51xv|2001 SCC 54 (CanLII)|[2001] 2 SCR 828}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}<br>  
{{CanLIIRPC|United States of America v Shephard|1mx51|1976 CanLII 8 (SCC)|[1977] 2 SCR 1067}}{{perSCC|Ritchie J}} <br>
{{CanLIIRPC|United States of America v Shephard|1mx51|1976 CanLII 8 (SCC)|[1977] 2 SCR 1067}}{{perSCC|Ritchie J}} <br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Mezzo v R|1ftrq|1986 CanLII 16 (SCC)|[1986] 1 SCR 802}}{{Plurality}} <br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Mezzo v R|1ftrq|1986 CanLII 16 (SCC)|[1986] 1 SCR 802}}{{Plurality}} <br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Dubois v The Queen|1ftsx|1986 CanLII 60 (SCC)|[1986] 1 SCR 366}}{{perSCC|Estey J}} <br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Dubois v The Queen|1ftsx|1986 CanLII 60 (SCC)|[1986] 1 SCR 366}}{{perSCC|Estey J}} <br>
{{CanLIIRP|Charemski|1fqtc|1998 CanLII 819 (SCC)|[1998] 1 SCR 679}}{{perSCC|Bastarache J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Charemski|1fqtc|1998 CanLII 819 (SCC)|[1998] 1 SCR 679}}{{perSCC-H|Bastarache J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Monteleone|1ftl9|1987 CanLII 16 (SCC)|[1987] 2 SCR 154}}{{perSCC|McIntyre J}}</ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Monteleone|1ftl9|1987 CanLII 16 (SCC)|[1987] 2 SCR 154}}{{perSCC-H|McIntyre J}}</ref>


Where direct evidence on each element of an offence is presented, the court must order the accused to stand trial on the charge. Exculpatory evidence will not result in a discharge of the charges.
Where direct evidence on each element of an offence is presented, the court must order the accused to stand trial on the charge. Exculpatory evidence will not result in a discharge of the charges.
Line 44: Line 46:
The judge may not exclude evidence at the inquiry due to any constitutional violations.<ref>
The judge may not exclude evidence at the inquiry due to any constitutional violations.<ref>
See, {{CanLIIRP|R(L)|231v6|1995 CanLII 8928 (ON CA)| (1995), 28 CRR (2d) 173}}{{perONCA|Arbour JA}}{{atp|183}}<br>  
See, {{CanLIIRP|R(L)|231v6|1995 CanLII 8928 (ON CA)| (1995), 28 CRR (2d) 173}}{{perONCA|Arbour JA}}{{atp|183}}<br>  
also {{CanLIIRP|Mills|1cxmx|1986 CanLII 17 (SCC)|26 CCC (3d) 481}}{{perSCC|McIntyre J}}<br>  
also {{CanLIIRP|Mills|1cxmx|1986 CanLII 17 (SCC)|26 CCC (3d) 481}}{{perSCC-H|McIntyre J}}<br>  
{{CanLIIRP|Seaboyer|1fskf|1991 CanLII 76 (SCC)|66 CCC (3d) 321}}{{perSCC|McLachlin J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Seaboyer|1fskf|1991 CanLII 76 (SCC)|66 CCC (3d) 321}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Hynes|51xk|2001 SCC 82 (CanLII)|[2001] 3 SCR 623, 159 CCC (3d) 359 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|McLachlin CJ}}{{atsL|51xk|28|, 32}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Hynes|51xk|2001 SCC 82 (CanLII)|[2001] 3 SCR 623, 159 CCC (3d) 359}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}{{atsL|51xk|28|, 32}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 98: Line 100:
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 243.
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 243.
{{Annotation}}
{{Annotation}}
|[{{CCCSec|540}} CCC]
|{{CCCSec2|540}}
|{{NoteUp|540|2|3}}
|{{NoteUp|540|2|3}}
}}
}}
Line 105: Line 107:
Any concessions or waiver of voir dires made at the preliminary inquiry stage are irrelevant and have no binding effect upon counsel at trial.<ref>
Any concessions or waiver of voir dires made at the preliminary inquiry stage are irrelevant and have no binding effect upon counsel at trial.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Al-Amoud|g18ks|1992 CanLII 7600 (ONSC)|10 OR (3d) 676}}{{perONSC|Then J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Al-Amoud|g18ks|1992 CanLII 7600 (ONSC)|10 OR (3d) 676}}{{perONSC|Then J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Cover|g9mzc|1988 CanLII 7118 (ONSC)| (1988), 40 CRR 381, 44 CCC (3d) 34 (Ont. H.C.J.)}}{{perONSC|Campbell J}}{{atps|383-84}} ("It is irrelevant that a voir dire was waived at the preliminary. Notwithstanding any waiver of a voir dire, the accused still retains the right to test the Crown's case and pin down witnesses on areas that might be relevant at trial")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Cover|g9mzc|1988 CanLII 7118 (ONSC)| (1988), 40 CRR 381, 44 CCC (3d) 34}}{{perONSC|Campbell J}}{{atps|383-84}} ("It is irrelevant that a voir dire was waived at the preliminary. Notwithstanding any waiver of a voir dire, the accused still retains the right to test the Crown's case and pin down witnesses on areas that might be relevant at trial")<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 177: Line 179:
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 244.
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 244.
{{Annotation}}
{{Annotation}}
|[{{CCCSec|541}} CCC]
|{{CCCSec2|541}}
|{{NoteUp|541|1|2|3|4|5}}
|{{NoteUp|541|1|2|3|4|5}}
}}
}}
Line 197: Line 199:
{{LegHistory00s|2005, c. 32}}, s. 19.
{{LegHistory00s|2005, c. 32}}, s. 19.
{{Annotation}}
{{Annotation}}
|[{{CCCSec|542}} CCC]
|{{CCCSec2|542}}
|{{NoteUp|542|1|2}}
|{{NoteUp|542|1|2}}
}}
}}
Line 218: Line 220:
{{LegHistory90s|1994, c. 44}}, s. 62.
{{LegHistory90s|1994, c. 44}}, s. 62.
{{Annotation}}
{{Annotation}}
|[{{CCCSec|657}} CCC]
|{{CCCSec2|657}}
|{{NoteUp|657}}
|{{NoteUp|657}}
}}
}}
Line 248: Line 250:
{{LegHistory00s|2002, c. 13}}, s. 29;
{{LegHistory00s|2002, c. 13}}, s. 29;
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 243.
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 243.
|[{{CCCSec|540}} CCC]
|{{CCCSec2|540}}
|{{NoteUp|540|4|5|6}}
|{{NoteUp|540|4|5|6}}
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 14:39, 14 July 2024

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2020. (Rev. # 95512)

General Principles

During a preliminary inquiry, the justice presiding the inquiry will accept evidence from witnesses and will permit cross-examination.

Taking evidence

540 (1) Where an accused is before a justice holding a preliminary inquiry, the justice shall

(a) take the evidence under oath of the witnesses called on the part of the prosecution, subject to subsection 537(1.01) [power limit issues and witnesses], and allow the accused or counsel for the accused to cross-examine them; and
(b) cause a record of the evidence of each witness to be taken
(i) in legible writing in the form of a deposition, in Form 31 [forms], or by a stenographer appointed by him or pursuant to law, or
(ii) in a province where a sound recording apparatus is authorized by or under provincial legislation for use in civil cases, by the type of apparatus so authorized and in accordance with the requirements of the provincial legislation.

[omitted (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 540; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 98; 1997, c. 18, s. 65; 2002, c. 13, s. 29; 2019, c. 25, s. 243.
[annotation(s) added]

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 540(1)


Defined terms: "accused" (s. 2) and "justice" (s. 2)

The taking of evidence will include evidence "that would not otherwise be admissible but that the justice considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances of the case, including a statement that is made by a witness in writing or otherwise recorded." (s.540 (7)) Anytime evidence is put forward under s.540(7) there must be reasonable notice to the other parties of "the intention to tender it, together with a copy of the statement". (s. 540(8))

The crown may adduce evidence of an admission or confession by the accused “that by law is admissible” against him. (s. 542(1))

Under s. 548(1), the Court must decide whether any admissible evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could return a guilty verdict. [1]

Where direct evidence on each element of an offence is presented, the court must order the accused to stand trial on the charge. Exculpatory evidence will not result in a discharge of the charges.

The judge may not exclude evidence at the inquiry due to any constitutional violations.[2]

The judge does not have the authority to compel the Crown to provide particulars or disclosure to the defence or compel the production of Third Party Records. Further, the judge cannot order a stay proceedings for abuse of process. [3]

The judge however may exclude a statement of the accused as involuntary.[4]

Expert Evidence

It is an error of jurisdiction by the preliminary inquiry judge to refuse to consider the "sufficiency of the foundation" of the expert evidence.[5]

Crown Evidence

The Crown has unfettered discretion on whom they wish to call as witnesses. A judge has no authority to direct the Crown to call witnesses.[6]

  1. See R v Arcuri, 2001 SCC 54 (CanLII), [2001] 2 SCR 828, per McLachlin CJ
    United States of America v Shephard, 1976 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1977] 2 SCR 1067, per Ritchie J
    Mezzo v R, 1986 CanLII 16 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 802
    Dubois v The Queen, 1986 CanLII 60 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 366, per Estey J
    R v Charemski, 1998 CanLII 819 (SCC), [1998] 1 SCR 679, per Bastarache J
    R v Monteleone, 1987 CanLII 16 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 154, per McIntyre J
  2. See, R v R(L), 1995 CanLII 8928 (ON CA), (1995), 28 CRR (2d) 173, per Arbour JA, at p. 183
    also R v Mills, 1986 CanLII 17 (SCC), 26 CCC (3d) 481, per McIntyre J
    R v Seaboyer, 1991 CanLII 76 (SCC), 66 CCC (3d) 321, per McLachlin J
    R v Hynes, 2001 SCC 82 (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 623, 159 CCC (3d) 359, per McLachlin CJ, at paras 28, 32
  3. Hynes, supra, at paras 33 and 38
    R v Chew, 1967 CanLII 214 (ON CA), [1968] 2 CCC 127 , [1968] 1 OR 97, 1967 CLB 46, per Aylesworth JA
  4. Hynes, supra, at paras 32 and 47
  5. R v King, 2011 ABQB 162 (CanLII), 276 CCC (3d) 371, per Strekaf J
  6. R v Brass, 1981 CanLII 2366 (SKQB), 64 CCC (2d) 206 (Sask. Q.B.), per Kindred J

Relevancy

Given the discovery function of the preliminary inquiry, the defence should be entitled to cross-examine on issues unrelated to committal but related to ultimate issues at trial.[1]

  1. R v Al-Amoud, 1992 CanLII 7600 (ONSC), 10 OR (3d) 676, per Then J
    R v Kasook, 2000 NWTSC 33 (CanLII), 2 WWR 683, per Vertes J - defence permitted to re-open case for inquiry judge refusing to allow defence to test relevant evidence

Depositions

540
[omitted (1)]

Reading and signing depositions

(2) Where a deposition is taken down in writing, the justice shall, in the presence of the accused, before asking the accused if he wishes to call witnesses,

(a) cause the deposition to be read to the witness;
(b) cause the deposition to be signed by the witness; and
(c) sign the deposition himself.
Authentication by justice

(3) Where depositions are taken down in writing, the justice may sign

(a) at the end of each deposition; or
(b) at the end of several or of all the depositions in a manner that will indicate that his signature is intended to authenticate each deposition.

[omitted (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 540; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 98; 1997, c. 18, s. 65; 2002, c. 13, s. 29; 2019, c. 25, s. 243.
[annotation(s) added]

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 540(2) and (3)

Defence Concessions at Preliminary Inquiry

Any concessions or waiver of voir dires made at the preliminary inquiry stage are irrelevant and have no binding effect upon counsel at trial.[1]

  1. R v Al-Amoud, 1992 CanLII 7600 (ONSC), 10 OR (3d) 676, per Then J
    R v Cover, 1988 CanLII 7118 (ONSC), (1988), 40 CRR 381, 44 CCC (3d) 34, per Campbell J, at pp. 383-84 ("It is irrelevant that a voir dire was waived at the preliminary. Notwithstanding any waiver of a voir dire, the accused still retains the right to test the Crown's case and pin down witnesses on areas that might be relevant at trial")

Circumstantial Evidence, Inferences and Weighing Evidence

See also: Circumstantial Evidence and Inferences

Where circumstantial evidence is presented, the court engages in "limited weighing" of all the evidence, to determine whether a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could return a guilty verdict. This involves considering the reasonableness of the inferences drawn from the evidence.

A preliminary inquiry judge may not rely entirely on a circumstantial case by making inferences.[1]

A "reasonable interpretation or permissible inference from the evidence, properly admissible against the accused, beyond conjecture or speculation, is to be resolved in favour of the prosecution."[2] If the justice "does not consider the competing inferences in a manner that gives the maximum reasonable benefit to the Crown, the case law characterizes this as the justice exceeding his or her jurisdiction."[3]

  1. R v Herman, 1984 CanLII 2664 (SK CA), [1984] S.J. No 206, (1984), 30 Sask.R. 148, 11 CCC (3d) 102, per Campbell JA
    cf. R v Coke, [1996] OJ No 808(*no CanLII links) , per Hill J, at para 9
  2. Coke, ibid., at para 9
  3. R v Corazza, 2013 ONCJ 433 (CanLII), per Reinhardt J , at para 93

Admissions or Confessions

Confessions, admissions or statements of the accused are admissible under the same test to be applied at trial.[1] Thus the crown must advance some evidence that the statement was made and to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was voluntary.[2]

  1. See, R v Pickett, 1975 CanLII 1428 (ON CA), 28 CCC (2d) 297, per Jessup JA, at p. 303
  2. For example, R v Mulligan, 1955 CanLII 124 (ON CA), 111 CCC 173, per MacKay JA, at pp. 176-7
    Pickett, supra, at p. 302

Defence Evidence

Under s. 541(2), once the Crown has closed its case at the preliminary inquiry, the presiding judge must ask the accused whether he wishes to testify on his own behalf. The address to the accused is as follows:

Do you wish to say anything in answer to these charges or to any other charges which might have arisen from the evidence led by the prosecution? You are not obliged to say anything, but whatever you do say may be given in evidence against you at your trial. You should not make any confession or admission of guilt because of any promise or threat made to you but if you do make any statement it may be given in evidence against you at your trial in spite of the promise or threat.

Anything the accused says can be taken down and used as evidence.(s. 541(2))

The accused is entitled to call any witnesses he wishes (s. 541(4)). The judge should be sure to inquire whether the accused is calling any other witnesses.(s.541(3))

The judge must inquire into whether a self-represented accused has any witnesses to call as evidence.[1]

Section 657 permits any statement made under s. 541(3) to be admitted into evidence against the accused without proof of a judge's signature upon the statement.

Hearing of witnesses

541 (1) When the evidence of the witnesses called on the part of the prosecution has been taken down and, if required by this Part [Pt. XVIII – Procedure on Preliminary Inquiry (ss. 535 to 551)], has been read, the justice shall, subject to this section and subsection 537(1.01) [power limit issues and witnesses], hear the witnesses called by the accused.

Contents of address to accused

(2) Before hearing any witness called by an accused who is not represented by counsel, the justice shall address the accused as follows or to the like effect:

“Do you wish to say anything in answer to these charges or to any other charges which might have arisen from the evidence led by the prosecution? You are not obliged to say anything, but whatever you do say may be given in evidence against you at your trial. You should not make any confession or admission of guilt because of any promise or threat made to you but if you do make any statement it may be given in evidence against you at your trial in spite of the promise or threat.”
Statement of accused

(3) Where the accused who is not represented by counsel says anything in answer to the address made by the justice pursuant to subsection (2) [contents of address to accused], the answer shall be taken down in writing and shall be signed by the justice and kept with the evidence of the witnesses and dealt with in accordance with this Part [Pt. XVIII – Procedure on Preliminary Inquiry (ss. 535 to 551)].

Witnesses for accused

(4) Where an accused is not represented by counsel, the justice shall ask the accused if he or she wishes to call any witnesses after subsections (2) [contents of address to accused] and (3) [statements of accused] have been complied with.

Depositions of witnesses

(5) Subject to subsection 537(1.01) [power limit issues and witnesses], the justice shall hear each witness called by the accused who testifies to any matter relevant to the inquiry, and for the purposes of this subsection, section 540 [taking evidence by preliminary inquiry judge] applies with any modifications that the circumstances require.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 541; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 99; 1994, c. 44, s. 54; 2019, c. 25, s. 244.
[annotation(s) added]

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 541(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5)

Confession or admission of accused

542 (1) Nothing in this Act prevents a prosecutor giving in evidence at a preliminary inquiry any admission, confession or statement made at any time by the accused that by law is admissible against him.

Restriction of publication of reports of preliminary inquiry

(2) Every one who publishes in any document, or broadcasts or transmits in any way, a report that any admission or confession was tendered in evidence at a preliminary inquiry or a report of the nature of such admission or confession so tendered in evidence unless

(a) the accused has been discharged, or
(b) if the accused has been ordered to stand trial, the trial has ended,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) [Repealed, 2005, c. 32, s. 19]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 542; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 101(E); 2005, c. 32, s. 19.
[annotation(s) added]

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 542(1) and (2)

No Right to Prevent Defence from Calling Witnesses

The inquiry judge has no ability to stop defence from calling relevant evidence even where they are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for committal.[2]

  1. R v LeBlanc, 2009 NBCA 84 (CanLII), 250 CCC (3d) 29, per Richard JA (3:0)
  2. R v Ward, 1976 CanLII 1335 (ONSC), 31 CCC (2d) 466, per Cory J

Defence Evidence Useable at Trial

Any statement by an accused made under s. 541(3) can be admitted at trial:

Evidence on Trial
Use in evidence of statement by accused

657 A statement made by an accused under subsection 541(3) [statements of accused] and purporting to be signed by the justice before whom it was made may be given in evidence against the accused at his or her trial without proof of the signature of the justice, unless it is proved that the justice by whom the statement purports to be signed did not sign it.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 657; 1994, c. 44, s. 62.
[annotation(s) added]

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 657

Hearsay Evidence

Recording of Evidence and Transcription

Taking evidence

540
[omitted (1), (2) and (3)]

Stenographer to be sworn

(4) Where the stenographer appointed to take down the evidence is not a duly sworn court stenographer, he shall make oath that he will truly and faithfully report the evidence.

Authentication of transcript

(5) Where the evidence is taken down by a stenographer appointed by the justice or pursuant to law, it need not be read to or signed by the witnesses, but, on request of the justice or of one of the parties, shall be transcribed, in whole or in part, by the stenographer and the transcript shall be accompanied by

(a) an affidavit of the stenographer that it is a true report of the evidence; or
(b) a certificate that it is a true report of the evidence if the stenographer is a duly sworn court stenographer.
Transcription of record taken by sound recording apparatus

(6) Where, in accordance with this Act, a record is taken in any proceedings under this Act by a sound recording apparatus, the record so taken shall, on request of the justice or of one of the parties, be dealt with and transcribed, in whole or in part, and the transcription certified and used in accordance with the provincial legislation, with such modifications as the circumstances require mentioned in subsection (1) [obligation to take and record evidence of inquiry witnesses].
[omitted (7), (8) and (9)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 540; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 98; 1997, c. 18, s. 65; 2002, c. 13, s. 29; 2019, c. 25, s. 243.

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 540(4), (5) and (6)

See Also