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
Post a Comment