Hearsay Made Necessary by a Recanting Witness

The fact that a witness is available at trial does not preclude her prior statement from being necessary.
With respect to the test of necessity, a number of cases have held that this test is met when a witness recants or in some other fashion effectively holds hostage evidence that cannot be obtained from another source.
In both K.G.B. and R. v. U. (F.J.), 1995 CanLII 74 (SCC),[1995] 3 S.C.R. 764, for instance, the majority of the Supreme Court held that the necessity test was met when a witness recanted on an earlier statement.  The earlier statement was necessary evidence because evidence of the same quality could not be obtained at trial. 
 Where a witness recants, that satisfies the necessity requirement. 
R. v. Taylor, 2015 ONCA 448 (CanLII), 325 C.C.C. (3d) 413, at para. 69; R. v. Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57 (CanLII), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787, at para. 78; and R. v. Youvarajah, 2013 SCC 41 (CanLII), [2013] 2 S.C.R. 720, at para. 22.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants