The Best Evidence Rule
The rule that the “best evidence must be given on which
the nature of the case permits” [FN1] is an old rule that has gone by the board long
ago. Underpinning that rule was an
understanding that documentary proof is usually more reliable than human
evidence.
It is now well established that any application of the best evidence rule is confined to cases in which it can be shown
that the party has the original and could produce it but does not. [FN2]
The modern rule only requires that an original (which
includes true copies or duplicate originals) should be tendered, if available.
When an “original” document is unavailable, exceptionally, secondary evidence
is admissible to prove the document. The court must be satisfied that an
original document existed, but is unavailable: e.g. has been lost or destroyed,
or is in the possession of a third party from whom production cannot be
compelled.
R. v. Howe, 2017 NSSC
199, at para. 48.
The best evidence rule is not engaged
when a document is not tendered as
proof of its contents.
David Watt, Watt's Manual of Criminal Evidence.
[FN] Ford v
Hopkins, 1 Salk. 283 (1701).
[FN2] R. v. Burton,
2017 NSSC 3 (CanLII), at para. 21: the term best
evidence rule continues to be used even though what we are talking about is
the documentary originals rule.
Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca
Comments
Post a Comment