{"id":17104,"date":"2022-03-16T14:38:03","date_gmt":"2022-03-16T18:38:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/?p=17104"},"modified":"2022-03-16T14:38:03","modified_gmt":"2022-03-16T18:38:03","slug":"directive-vetrovec-il-sagit-non-pas-de-savoir-si-le-juge-du-proces-estime-personnellement-que-le-temoin-est-digne-de-foi-mais-plutot-de-savoir-sil-existe-des-facteurs-qui-d","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/directive-vetrovec-il-sagit-non-pas-de-savoir-si-le-juge-du-proces-estime-personnellement-que-le-temoin-est-digne-de-foi-mais-plutot-de-savoir-sil-existe-des-facteurs-qui-d\/","title":{"rendered":"Directive Vetrovec : Il s\u2019agit non pas de savoir si le juge du proc\u00e8s estime personnellement que le t\u00e9moin est digne de foi, mais plut\u00f4t de savoir s\u2019il existe des facteurs qui, d\u2019apr\u00e8s ce que l\u2019exp\u00e9rience enseigne, exigent d\u2019aborder avec circonspection le r\u00e9cit du t\u00e9moin."},"content":{"rendered":"

Beauchamp c. R., 2022 QCCA 339<\/a><\/p>\n

[8] The refusal to give a Vetrovec<\/em> instruction can amount to reversible error if the need for a robust caution is not given sufficient attention.[6]<\/a> A clear and sharp instruction is not required if, despite elements that might impugn the weight of his or her testimony, the witness appears sufficiently credible.[7]<\/a> The refusal to give a Vetrovec<\/em> warning does not restrict the discretion of the judge to include a direction that is less pointed or robust concerning the need for caution in the evaluation of the credit due to a witness\u2019s testimony.[8]<\/a> The decision to refuse, or to give, a Vetrovec<\/em> instruction will not amount to reversible error unless it is unfounded in law or it creates undue prejudice.[9]<\/a><\/h2>\n

[7]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 The Supreme Court has approved the following comments on the application of the principles in Vetrovec<\/em> as stated in an article by Marc Rosenberg:<\/p>\n

The judge should first in an objective way determine whether there is a reason to suspect the credibility of the witness according to the traditional means by which such determinations are made. This would include a review of the evidence to determine whether there are factors which have properly led the courts to be wary of accepting a witness\u2019s evidence. Factors might include involvement in criminal activities, a motive to lie by reason of connection to the crime or to the authorities, unexplained delay in coming forward with the story, providing different accounts on other occasions, lies told under oath, and similar considerations. It is not then whether the trial judge personally finds the witness trustworthy but whether there are factors which experience teaches that the witness\u2019s story be approached with caution. Second, the trial judge must assess the importance of the witness to the Crown\u2019s case. If the witness plays a relatively minor role in the proof of guilt it is probably unnecessary to burden the jury with a special caution and then review the confirmatory evidence. However, the more important the witness the greater the duty on the judge to give the caution. At some point, as where the witness plays a central role in the proof of guilt, the warning is mandatory. This, in my view, flows from the duty imposed on the trial judge in criminal cases to review the evidence and relate the evidence to the issues.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

[8]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 The refusal to give a Vetrovec<\/em> instruction can amount to reversible error if the need for a robust caution is not given sufficient attention.[6]<\/a> A clear and sharp instruction is not required if, despite elements that might impugn the weight of his or her testimony, the witness appears sufficiently credible.[7]<\/a> The refusal to give a Vetrovec<\/em> warning does not restrict the discretion of the judge to include a direction that is less pointed or robust concerning the need for caution in the evaluation of the credit due to a witness\u2019s testimony.[8]<\/a> The decision to refuse, or to give, a Vetrovec<\/em> instruction will not amount to reversible error unless it is unfounded in law or it creates undue prejudice.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

The objective in Vetrovec<\/i> was to liberate the law from rules of undue formalism relating to the principle of corroboration and to replace them with due recognition of the judge\u2019s discretion to fashion appropriate instructions that reflect the underlying imperatives of principle.<\/h2>\n

[36]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 The objective in Vetrovec<\/em> was to liberate the law from rules of undue formalism relating to the principle of corroboration and to replace them with due recognition of the judge\u2019s discretion to fashion appropriate instructions that reflect the underlying imperatives of principle.[15]<\/a> In Khela<\/em> the Supreme Court summarised those imperatives:<\/p>\n

(1) drawing the attention of the jury to the testimonial evidence requiring special\u00a0scrutiny; (2) explaining\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0this evidence is subject to special scrutiny; (3)\u00a0cautioning the jury that it is dangerous to convict on unconfirmed evidence of this sort, though the jury is entitled to do so if satisfied that the evidence is true; and (4) that the jury, in determining the veracity of the suspect evidence, should look for evidence from another source tending to show that the untrustworthy witness is telling the truth as to the guilt of the accused.[16]<\/a><\/p>\n

[37]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 The Court explained clearly that these imperatives were not in themselves formal rules that required strict adherence but guidelines to assist judges to formulate instructions in their discretion that satisfy two objectives:<\/p>\n

[47]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 It is not \u201coverly formalistic\u201d to ensure that triers of fact attain the appropriate level of comfort before convicting an accused on the basis of what has for centuries been considered unreliable evidence. A truly functional approach must take into account the dual purpose of the\u00a0Vetrovec\u00a0warning: first, to alert the jury to the danger of relying on the unsupported evidence of unsavoury witnesses and to explain the reasons for special scrutiny of their testimony; and second, in appropriate cases, to give the jury the tools necessary to identify evidence capable of enhancing the trustworthiness of those witnesses.[17]<\/a><\/p>\n

[38]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 In Durand<\/em> this court enumerated some of the factors that might support reasons to impugn the credibility of a witness and to justify a Vetrovec<\/em> warning:<\/p>\n

[123]\u00a0\u00a0 La question de la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d\u2019une directive de type\u00a0Vetrovec\u00a0<\/em>repose sur une approche fonctionnelle, fond\u00e9e sur le bon sens et l\u2019exp\u00e9rience judiciaire. Au titre des facteurs propres \u00e0 mettre objectivement en doute la cr\u00e9dibilit\u00e9 d\u2019un t\u00e9moin, les tribunaux retiennent, entre autres, la complicit\u00e9 du t\u00e9moin dans le fait ou apr\u00e8s le fait, les t\u00e9moins de mauvaise r\u00e9putation, ceux qui ont fait des d\u00e9clarations mensong\u00e8res dans le pass\u00e9, les t\u00e9moins ayant un lourd casier judiciaire ou ayant un mode de vie criminel, les consommateurs ou trafiquants de stup\u00e9fiants, le fait que le t\u00e9moin croit avoir un int\u00e9r\u00eat personnel \u00e0 t\u00e9moigner contre l\u2019accus\u00e9, le retard inexpliqu\u00e9 pour pr\u00e9senter sa version des faits aux autorit\u00e9s, le caract\u00e8re sp\u00e9cifique de la pr\u00e9sum\u00e9e confession (du type\u00a0: \u00ab\u00a0j\u2019ai tu\u00e9 X\u00a0\u00bb) et la mesure dans laquelle la d\u00e9claration renferme des d\u00e9tails que seul l\u2019auteur de l\u2019infraction conna\u00eet, ainsi que l\u2019acc\u00e8s \u00e0 des sources ext\u00e9rieures\u00a0de renseignements.[18]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Beauchamp c. R., 2022 QCCA 339 [8] The refusal to give a Vetrovec instruction can amount to reversible error if the need for a robust caution is not given sufficient attention.[6] A clear and sharp instruction is not required if, despite elements that might impugn the weight of his or her testimony, the witness appears […]<\/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":[466],"yst_prominent_words":[1046,1081],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17104"}],"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=17104"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17104\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17104"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=17104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}