{"id":15149,"date":"2020-08-08T08:23:53","date_gmt":"2020-08-08T12:23:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/?p=15149"},"modified":"2020-08-08T08:23:53","modified_gmt":"2020-08-08T12:23:53","slug":"declaration-anterieure-compatible-credibilite","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/declaration-anterieure-compatible-credibilite\/","title":{"rendered":"Lorsque la d\u00e9claration ant\u00e9rieure compatible risque de renforcer la cr\u00e9dibilit\u00e9 ou la fiabilit\u00e9 d\u2019un t\u00e9moin, une directive limitative sera presque toujours requise : Johnson c. R., 2020 QCCA 1003"},"content":{"rendered":"

Johnson c. R., 2020 QCCA 1003<\/a><\/p>\n

Les d\u00e9clarations ant\u00e9rieures compatibles font l\u2019objet d\u2019une r\u00e8gle d\u2019exclusion g\u00e9n\u00e9rale pour trois motifs : elles n\u2019ont aucune force probante, il s\u2019agit de d\u00e9clarations int\u00e9ress\u00e9es et, en outre, elles constituent du ou\u00ef-dire lorsqu\u2019elles sont utilis\u00e9es pour la v\u00e9racit\u00e9 de leur contenu.<\/h2>\n

L\u2019un des principaux probl\u00e8mes li\u00e9s aux d\u00e9clarations ant\u00e9rieures compatibles peut \u00eatre d\u00e9crit comme suit : \u00ab m\u00eame r\u00e9p\u00e9t\u00e9e \u00e0 plusieurs reprises, une d\u00e9claration invent\u00e9e demeure invent\u00e9e \u00bb.<\/h2>\n

[8] En principe, les d\u00e9clarations ant\u00e9rieures compatibles sont inadmissibles. Dans les d\u00e9cisions R. c. Stirling[2], R. c. Dinardo[3] et R. c. Ellard[4], la Cour supr\u00eame discute de cette r\u00e8gle g\u00e9n\u00e9rale d\u2019exclusion[5]. La Cour affirme que les d\u00e9clarations ant\u00e9rieures compatibles font l\u2019objet d\u2019une r\u00e8gle d\u2019exclusion g\u00e9n\u00e9rale pour trois motifs : elles n\u2019ont aucune force probante[6], il s\u2019agit de d\u00e9clarations int\u00e9ress\u00e9es[7] et, en outre, elles constituent du ou\u00ef-dire lorsqu\u2019elles sont utilis\u00e9es pour la v\u00e9racit\u00e9 de leur contenu[8]. L\u2019un des principaux probl\u00e8mes li\u00e9s aux d\u00e9clarations ant\u00e9rieures compatibles peut \u00eatre d\u00e9crit comme suit : \u00ab m\u00eame r\u00e9p\u00e9t\u00e9e \u00e0 plusieurs reprises, une d\u00e9claration invent\u00e9e demeure invent\u00e9e \u00bb[9]. Dans Ellard, la majorit\u00e9 expose la difficult\u00e9 en des termes on ne peut plus clairs :<\/p>\n

\n

Le raisonnement justifiant l\u2019exclusion de ces d\u00e9clarations est que la r\u00e9p\u00e9tition ne renforce pas la valeur ou la v\u00e9racit\u00e9 d\u2019un t\u00e9moignage et ne doit pas \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme telle. Parce qu\u2019il existe un risque que des d\u00e9clarations ant\u00e9rieures similaires, particuli\u00e8rement celles faites sous serment, puissent sembler plus cr\u00e9dibles \u00e0 un jury, elles doivent \u00eatre trait\u00e9es avec prudence.[10]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

[9] La jurisprudence reconna\u00eet une s\u00e9rie d\u2019exceptions techniques \u00e0 ce principe g\u00e9n\u00e9ral d\u2019exclusion, notamment lorsque la preuve rev\u00eat une valeur probante suffisante pour \u00e9carter les dangers li\u00e9s \u00e0 la preuve pr\u00e9constitu\u00e9e. La Cour d\u2019appel de l\u2019Ontario a r\u00e9cemment rassembl\u00e9 une formation de cinq juges pour se pencher sur cette r\u00e8gle d\u2019exclusion g\u00e9n\u00e9rale et les exceptions dont elle souffre. Dans des motifs concourants, le juge Doherty nous convie \u00e0 adopter une approche \u00ab raisonn\u00e9e \u00bb (principled approach) :<\/p>\n

\n

[58] The admissibility of prior consistent statements is governed by what I would describe as the traditional common law model. We are told that prior consistent statements are presumptively inadmissible subject to a series of discrete exceptions. Admissibility depends on whether the proffered evidence fits into any of the pre-existing exceptions. This approach, once common to most evidentiary rules, most notably the rules governing hearsay evidence, has to a large extent been abandoned in favour of a principled-based approach to admissibility.<\/p>\n

[59] The admissibility of a prior consistent statement, like the admissibility of other forms of evidence, turns on the relevance, materiality and probative value of the evidence. When a prior consistent statement is tendered, the admissibility inquiry should focus on these broader considerations rather than the technicalities of established exceptions. This change in focus would not produce any significant change in the circumstances in which the prior statement would be admitted. The existing exceptions are to a large extent a product of the application of the broader principles underlying the admissibility of evidence. An approach which looks to broader principles would, however, require counsel and the trial judge to come to grips with the precise use of and value of the evidence of the prior consistent statement in the specific circumstances of the case. I think an approach based on the broader principles is much more likely to focus the minds of counsel and the trial judge on exactly what the evidence is said to do and the ability of the evidence to further that stated purpose. Instead of broad statements such as \u201cthe evidence goes to credibility\u201d, the principled approach should produce reasons explaining exactly how the evidence, in the circumstances of the case, goes to credibility[11].<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

[10] Lorsqu\u2019une d\u00e9claration ant\u00e9rieure compatible est admise en preuve par le biais d\u2019une des exceptions \u00e0 la r\u00e8gle g\u00e9n\u00e9rale d\u2019exclusion, son admissibilit\u00e9 demeure restreinte. La preuve admise comporte une utilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e qui varie selon l\u2019exception en cause. Ces r\u00e8gles d\u2019admissibilit\u00e9 strictes ont deux corollaires. D\u2019une part, le juge charg\u00e9 de statuer sur l\u2019admissibilit\u00e9 d\u2019une d\u00e9claration ant\u00e9rieure compatible doit cerner le but poursuivi par la partie qui tente de la faire admettre en preuve. Il doit \u00e9galement d\u00e9finir l\u2019utilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e qu\u2019aura la d\u00e9claration une fois admise. D\u2019autre part, lorsque le proc\u00e8s se d\u00e9roule devant jury, le juge doit communiquer des directives limitatives pr\u00e9cises aux jur\u00e9s pour cibler l\u2019utilisation permise et l\u2019utilisation non permise d\u2019une telle d\u00e9claration.<\/p>\n

[11] La jurisprudence est claire : lorsque la d\u00e9claration risque de renforcer la cr\u00e9dibilit\u00e9 ou la fiabilit\u00e9 d\u2019un t\u00e9moin, une directive limitative sera presque toujours requise[12]. Cela dit, des directives lacunaires ne justifient pas automatiquement une intervention en appel. Le juge Watt de la Cour d\u2019appel de l\u2019Ontario l\u2019a rappel\u00e9 dans R. c. M.P.[13] :<\/p>\n

\n

[80] The effect of the failure of a trial judge to properly apprise a jury about the limited use of prior consistent statements in reaching its verdict varies. Sometimes fatal. Other times, not. As noted above, perfection is not the standard by which we are to judge the adequacy of jury instructions. Each case falls to be decided according to its own idiosyncratic facts, but the authorities yield some relevant considerations:<\/p>\n

i. Did the prior consistent statement extend beyond the mere fact of its making to include incriminatory details?<\/p>\n

ii. How many prior consistent statements were introduced or repeated?<\/p>\n

iii. Who introduced the evidence?<\/p>\n

iv. Did the party introducing the evidence rely on it for a prohibited purpose?<\/p>\n

v. Was any objection taken to the introduction of the prior consistent statements or to the failure to provide instructions limiting their use?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Johnson c. R., 2020 QCCA 1003 Les d\u00e9clarations ant\u00e9rieures compatibles font l\u2019objet d\u2019une r\u00e8gle d\u2019exclusion g\u00e9n\u00e9rale pour trois motifs : elles n\u2019ont aucune force probante, il s\u2019agit de d\u00e9clarations int\u00e9ress\u00e9es et, en outre, elles constituent du ou\u00ef-dire lorsqu\u2019elles sont utilis\u00e9es pour la v\u00e9racit\u00e9 de leur contenu. L\u2019un des principaux probl\u00e8mes li\u00e9s aux d\u00e9clarations ant\u00e9rieures compatibles […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[120],"tags":[3844],"yst_prominent_words":[1046,1048,2987,3825],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15149"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15149"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15149\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15149"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=15149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}