Past Recollection Recorded


Past recollection recorded is a well-established exception to the hearsay rule.  Although the test has been described in different language over the years, the essential conditions for admissibility are as follows:


Reliable record 

The past recollection must have been recorded in a reliable way.  This requirement can be broken down into two separate considerations:  First, it requires the witness to have prepared the record personally, or to have reviewed it for accuracy if someone else prepared it.  Second, the original record must be used if it is available.


Timeliness

The record must have been made or reviewed within a reasonable time, while the event was sufficiently fresh in the witness’s mind to be vivid and likely accurate.

The timeliness requirement does not call for strict contemporaneity.  It is sufficient if the record is prepared close enough to the events to ensure accuracy.  The appropriate length of time will vary with the circumstances of the case.  The key is whether the events were fresh in the declarant’s mind.  See R. v. Lauzon, [2000] O.J. No. 3940 (C.A.)  (3 days);  R. v. Weinberg, [1993] O.J. No. 4041 (C.A.) (48 hours);  R. v. Eisenhauer (1998), 1998 CanLII 1901 (NS CA), 123 C.C.C. (3d) 37 (N.S.C.A.) (6 days); R. v. Richardson, 2003 CanLII 3896 (ON CA) (where the passage of 16 hours between the events and the recording came within the acceptable bounds to give rise to an assumption of reliability).


 Absence of memory

At the time the witness testifies, he or she must have no memory of the recorded events.
The absence of memory requirement does not mean that a statement is admissible as past recollection recorded only where the witness has a total loss of memory regarding the relevant events: R. v. Richardson, 2003 CanLII 3896 (ON CA).


Present voucher as to accuracy

The witness, although having no memory of the recorded events, must vouch for the accuracy of the assertions in the record;  in other words, the witness must be able to say that he or she was being truthful at the time the assertions were recorded. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more