Similar Fact Evidence: Unintentional Collusion
In similar fact evidence
cases, at the admissibility stage, the trial judge’s main task is to weigh the
probative value of the evidence against its potential prejudicial effect. The
possibility of collusion may significantly affect this balancing.
See R. v. Wilkinson, 2017 ONCA 756 (CanLII), at para. 29.
The theory of similar fact
evidence turns largely on the improbability of coincidence. Collusion, by
offering an alternative explanation for the "coincidence" of evidence
emanating from different witnesses, destroys its probative value, and therefore
the basis for its admissibility.
R.
v. Shearing, 2002 SCC 58 (CanLII),Shearing,
at para. 40.
Accused to Establish an Air of Reality to the Allegation
of Collusion
The dividing line between
cases in which collusion is a live issue, and cases in which it is not, is the
presence of an “air of reality.” As Binnie J. held in Handy,2002 SCC 56 (CanLII), at para. 111: “The issue is concoction
or collaboration, not contact. If the evidence amounts to no more than
opportunity, it will usually best be left to the jury.”
Crown must then disprove collusion on balance
Although collusion
is a feature of probative value, it is singled out for special consideration at
the admissibility stage. The Crown must disprove the possibility of collusion. Where,
there is some evidence of actual collusion, or
at least an "air of reality" to the allegations, the Crown is
required to satisfy the trial judge, on a balance of probabilities, that the
evidence of similar facts is not tainted with collusion. That much would gain admission.
Handy, at para. 112.
If this threshold test is
passed, the jury must determine for itself what weight, if any, to assign to
the similar fact evidence.
Shearing, at
para. 42.
Inadvertent Collusion
Collusion may be deliberate
or inadvertent. Irrespective, the Crown is
held to the same standard of disproving that the evidence was tainted by collusion.
Wilkinson, at
para. 39, 45.
Inadvertent or unintentional
collusion may occur in a variety of ways, for instance:
- through the witness viewing media reports: R. v. Dorsey, 2012 ONCA 185 (CanLII), 288 C.C.C. (3d), at para. 29;
- as a result of the influence of hearing other people's stories, which can tend to colour one's interpretation of personal events or reinforce a perception about which one had doubts or concerns: R. v. F. (J.) (2003), 2003 CanLII 52166 (ON CA), at para. 77; R. v. B. (C.) (2003), 2003 CanLII 32894 (ON CA), at paras. 40-41.
Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell
Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca
Comments
Post a Comment