{"id":6244,"date":"2015-04-17T19:50:02","date_gmt":"2015-04-17T19:50:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/doyonavocats.ca\/le-contre-interrogatoire-et-la-regle-de-browne-v-dunn\/"},"modified":"2019-08-22T06:25:59","modified_gmt":"2019-08-22T10:25:59","slug":"le-contre-interrogatoire-et-la-regle-de-browne-v-dunn","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/le-contre-interrogatoire-et-la-regle-de-browne-v-dunn\/","title":{"rendered":"Le contre-interrogatoire et la r\u00e8gle de Browne v. Dunn : R. v. Quansah,\u00a02015 ONCA 237"},"content":{"rendered":"

Le contre-interrogatoire selon la r\u00e8gle de Dunn : \u00c0 lire.<\/h3>\n

R. v. Quansah,\u00a0<\/em>2015 ONCA 237 :<\/span><\/p>\n

[75]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In\u00a0Browne v. Dunn<\/em>, Lord Herschell, L.C., explained that if a party intended to impeach a witness called by an opposite party, the party who seeks to impeach must give the witness an opportunity, while the witness is in the witness box, to provide any explanation the witness may have for the contradictory evidence:\u00a0Browne v. Dunn<\/em>, pp. 70-71;\u00a0R. v. Henderson<\/em>\u00a0(1999), 134 C.C.C. (3d) 131 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 141; and\u00a0R. v. McNeill<\/em>\u00a0(2000), 144 C.C.C. (3d) 551 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 44.<\/p>\n

[76]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The rule in\u00a0Browne v. Dunn<\/em>, as it has come to be known, reflects a confrontation principle in the context of cross-examination of a witness for a party opposed in interest on disputed factual issues. In some jurisdictions, for example in Australia, practitioners describe it as a \u201cputtage\u201d rule because it requires a cross-examiner to \u201cput\u201d to the opposing witness in cross-examination the substance of contradictory evidence to be adduced through the cross-examiner\u2019s own witness or witnesses.<\/p>\n

[77]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The rule is rooted in the following considerations of fairness:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Fairness to the witness whose credibility is attacked:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The witness is alerted that the cross-examiner intends to impeach his or her evidence and given a chance to explain why the contradictory evidence, or any inferences to be drawn from it, should not be accepted:\u00a0R. v. Dexter<\/em>, 2013 ONCA 744, 313 O.A.C. 226, at para. 17;\u00a0Browne v. Dunn<\/em>, at pp. 70-71.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Fairness to the party whose witness is impeached:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The party calling the witness has notice of the precise aspects of that witness\u2019s testimony that are being contested so that the party can decide whether or what confirmatory evidence to call; and<\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0iii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Fairness to the trier of fact:<\/p>\n

      Without the rule, the trier of fact would be deprived of information that might show the credibility impeachment to be unfounded and thus compromise the accuracy of the verdict.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Le contre-interrogatoire selon la r\u00e8gle de Dunn : \u00c0 lire. R. v. Quansah,\u00a02015 ONCA 237 : [75]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In\u00a0Browne v. Dunn, Lord Herschell, L.C., explained that if a party intended to impeach a witness called by an opposite party, the party who seeks to impeach must give the witness an opportunity, while the witness is in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":10968,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[120],"tags":[],"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6244"}],"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=6244"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6244\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10968"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6244"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6244"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6244"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=6244"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}