R v Bradshaw

Bradshaw constrained the use of corroborative evidence in establishing threshold reliability of hearsay. Corroborative evidence may support reliability only where it rules out plausible alternative explanations for the statement (e.g. fabrication, mistake).

Bradshaw was charged with two murders. The key Crown evidence was a hearsay re-enactment by an accomplice, supported by other circumstantial evidence.

When may corroborative evidence be used in the threshold-reliability analysis?

New trial ordered. Framework articulated.

Corroborative evidence supports threshold reliability of hearsay only where the corroboration rules out the plausible explanations the accused has identified for the statement (e.g. fabrication, faulty perception, faulty memory). It cannot be used to bootstrap reliability by mere consistency.

Karakatsanis J explained that allowing any consistent corroborating evidence to support reliability risks circular reasoning. The corroboration must address the specific alternative explanations the accused has raised for why the statement might be unreliable.

Modern complement to Khelawon. Together they govern the principled approach to hearsay in Canadian criminal trials. Strict on bootstrapping; demanding on the Crown to identify and respond to alternative explanations.

R v Bradshaw, 2017 SCC 35, [2017] 1 SCR 865.

McLachlin CJ, Abella J, Moldaver J, Karakatsanis J, Wagner J, Gascon J, Côté J, Brown J, Rowe J