Instructing the Jury on the Limits of Demeanor Evidence
It is very common in trials where the credibility of a complainant is at
issue that the Crown’s submissions will, among other things, address the
demeanour of a complainant: for instance, that the complainant’s testimony had
the ring of truth; that the complainant testified in a manner that was simple
and straightforward; that the complainant appeared to do his/her best to answer
all of the questions.
The trier of fact (whether it be a judge or a jury), however, should be
cognizant of the fallibility of evaluating credibility based on the demeanour
of witnesses.
A trial judge should generally instruct the jury on the limits of
demeanor evidence in assessing credibility. The Canadian Judicial Council’s Model Jury Instructions, Part I, Preliminary Instructions, 4.11 Assessing
Testimony (online: https://www.nji-inm.ca/index.cfm/publications/model-jury-instructions/?langSwitch=en)
includes the following instruction:
What was the
witness’s manner when he or she testified? Do not jump to conclusions, however,
based entirely on the witness’s manner. Looks can be deceiving. Giving evidence
in a trial is not a common experience for many witnesses. People react and
appear differently. Witnesses come from different backgrounds. They have
different intellects, abilities, values, and life experiences. There are
simply too many variables to make the manner in which a witness testifies the
only or the most important factor in your decision. [Emphasis added].
See also David Watt, Watt's Manual of Criminal Evidence, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2015), at p. 268.
This model instruction is well founded both in law and common sense. In
R. v.
Rhayel, 2015 ONCA 377,
324 C.C.C. (3d) 362, at para. 85, Epstein J.A. cited the growing understanding
of the “fallibility of evaluating credibility based on the demeanour of
witnesses”:
It is now
acknowledged that demeanour is of limited value because it can be affected by
many factors including the culture of the witness, stereotypical attitudes, and
the artificiality of and pressures associated with a courtroom. One of the
dangers is that sincerity can be and often is misinterpreted as indicating
truthfulness.
See also Law Society of Upper Canada v. Neinstein, 2010 ONCA 193, 99 O.R. (3d) 1, at para. 66, and R. v. Hemsworth, 2016 ONCA 85, [2016] O.J. No. 505, at paras. 44-45.
Comments
Post a Comment