R. v. Henry

R. v. Henry
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2005-12-15
Neutral citation
2005 SCC 76
Report
[2005] 3 SCR 609
Case number
29952, 29953
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Major, John C.; Bastarache, Michel; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; LeBel, Louis; Deschamps, Marie; Fish, Morris J.; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Charron, Louise
On appeal from
British Columbia
Subjects
Constitutional law
Courts
Notes
SCC Case Information: 29952, 29953
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Henry, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609, 2005 SCC 76
Date: 20051215
Docket: 29952, 29953
Between:
David Brock Henry
Appellant
and
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Attorney General of Canada and
Attorney General of Ontario
Interveners
And between:
Barry Wayne Riley
Appellant
and
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Attorney General of Canada and
Attorney General of Ontario
Interveners
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 61)
Binnie J. (McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ. concurring)
______________________________
R. v. Henry, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609, 2005 SCC 76
David Brock Henry Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
- and -
Barry Wayne Riley Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
and
Attorney General of Canada and
Attorney General of Ontario Interveners
Indexed as: R. v. Henry
Neutral citation: 2005 SCC 76.
File Nos.: 29952, 29953.
Hearing: April 23, 2004.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Fish JJ.
Rehearing: January 12, 2005.
Judgment: December 15, 2005.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Self‑incrimination — Retrial of accused on same charge — Crown cross‑examining accused on their testimony given at prior trial to impeach their credibility — Whether use of statements made at first trial violated accused’s right against self‑incrimination guaranteed by s. 13 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Whether s. 13 available to accused who choose to testify at their retrial on same indictment.
Courts — Supreme Court of Canada — Decisions — Circumstances in which prior Supreme Court decisions will be reconsidered or revised — Compelling circumstances.
Courts — Supreme Court of Canada — Decisions — Obiter dicta — Whether obiter dicta in prior Supreme Court decisions binding on lower courts — Weight to be given to obiter dicta.
In their retrial on a charge of first degree murder the accused told a different story under oath than they had five years earlier at their first trial on the same charge. At the new trial, the Crown cross‑examined the accused on these prior inconsistent statements for the purpose of impeaching their credibility. They were again convicted of first degree murder. On appeal the accused argued that notwithstanding the fact they were not (and could not be) compelled to testify at their first trial, they ought nevertheless to have been protected as voluntary witnesses at their second trial from exposure of the contradictory testimony they gave at the first trial, despite the misleading impression with which such non‑disclosure would have left the jury. The search for truth, they contended, is limited by s. 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The majority judgment of the Court of Appeal rejected this argument and upheld the conviction. The dissenting judge would have ordered a new trial because on his view of Noël the use of the prior inconsistent statements in those circumstances violated the accused’s right against self‑incrimination.
Held: The appeals should be dismissed.
Section 13 of the Charter is not available to an accused who chooses to testify at his retrial on the same indictment. The purpose of s. 13 is to protect individuals from being indirectly compelled to incriminate themselves. As in the case of s. 5 of the Canada Evidence Act , s. 13 embodies a quid pro quo: when a witness who is compelled to give evidence in a proceeding is exposed to the risk of self‑incrimination, the state offers, in exchange for that witness’s testimony, protection against the subsequent use of that evidence against him. Here, the accused freely testified at their first trial and freely testified at their second trial. The compulsion, which is the source of the quid pro quo which in turn lies at the root of s. 13 , was missing. Accordingly, their s. 13 Charter rights were not violated by the Crown’s cross‑examination. They were in no need of protection “from being indirectly compelled to incriminate themselves”. [22] [42‑43] [47] [60]
The jurisprudence of this Court has not been altogether consistent on the scope of s. 13 and it is therefore desirable to retrace the path from Dubois to Noël. The Court’s practice, of course, is against departing from its precedents unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Such circumstances exist here in respect of Mannion. The consequences of failing to adhere consistently to a purposeful interpretation of s. 13 have only emerged over time as the courts have struggled to apply the Kuldip distinction between impeachment of credibility and incrimination in ways that, as the accused’s invocation of Noël illustrates, have become unduly and unnecessarily complex and technical. The defence and the prosecution both view with scepticism the idea that triers of fact can truly isolate the purpose of impeaching credibility from the purpose of incrimination. They agree on the problem but disagree about the solution. Moreover, the insistence that s. 13 has the same application in a retrial of the same accused on the same indictment as it does in a trial where the accused was formerly not an accused but a compellable witness, has led to an unfair dilution of the s. 13 protection in the latter situation. The attempt to subject these very different situations to the same constitutional rule results in the end in a satisfactory solution for neither. [8] [24] [44‑46]
Reviewing the Court’s s. 13 jurisprudence in light of its purpose (“to protect individuals from being indirectly compelled to incriminate themselves”), the argument of the Attorney General of Canada that Dubois was wrongly decided is rejected. The accused has a right not to testify. The Crown cannot file his testimony given at the prior trial (now overturned) as part of its case‑in‑chief at the retrial, because to do so would permit the Crown indirectly to compel the accused to testify at the retrial in circumstances where s. 11 (c) of the Charter would not permit such compelled self‑incrimination directly. The Crown must prove its case without recruiting the accused to incriminate himself. [22] [39‑40]
On the other hand there are persuasive reasons for declining to follow Mannion. In that case, the accused freely testified at his first and second trials. The compulsion which is the source of the quid pro quo, which in turn lies at the root of s. 13 , was missing. Denying the Crown the opportunity to cross‑examine the accused on his prior voluntary testimony gave him a constitutional immunity to which he was not entitled. In Mannion, the Court did not adopt an interpretation in line with the purpose of s. 13 . [42] [45]
Kuldip should be affirmed insofar as it permitted cross‑examination of the accused on the inconsistent testimony he volunteered at his first trial. However, insofar as the Court felt compelled by Mannion to narrow the purpose of the cross‑examination to the issue of credibility, the decision in the instant case not to follow Mannion renders such restriction no longer operative. If the contradiction of testimony gives rise to an inference of guilt, s. 13 of the Charter does not preclude the trier of fact from drawing the common sense inference. [48]
Noël is a classic example of prosecutorial abuse of the very “bargain” s. 13 was designed to enforce. Called to testify at somebody else’s trial, Noël was a compellable witness who at common law could have refused to answer the Crown’s questions that tended to show his guilt. He was compelled by s. 5(1) of the Canada Evidence Act to answer the incriminating questions, and in consequence he invoked the protection of s. 5(2) . When s. 5(2) says “the answer so given shall not be used or admissible in evidence”, it means not to be used for any purpose, including the impeachment of credibility. Noël is affirmed on its facts. [49]
Further, even though s. 13 talks of precluding the use of prior evidence “to incriminate that witness”, and thus implicitly leaves the door open to its use for other purposes such as impeachment of credibility, experience has demonstrated the difficulty in practice of working with such distinctions. As the distinction is unrealistic in the context of s. 5(2), it must equally be unrealistic in the context of s. 13 . Accordingly, by parity of reasoning, prior compelled evidence should, under s. 13 as under s. 5(2), be treated as inadmissible in evidence against an accused, even for the ostensible purpose of challenging his or her credibility, and be restricted (in the words of s. 13 itself) to “a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence”. Allen was a straightforward application of Noël and its correctness is confirmed. [50‑51]
Much of the argument on this appeal was directed to obiter statements in various s. 13 cases. The notion is sometimes (erroneously) attributed to Sellars that each phrase in a judgment of this Court should be treated as if enacted in a statute. Such an approach is not supported by the cases and is inconsistent with the basic fundamental principle that the common law develops by experience. The submissions of the attorneys general were predicated on a strict and tidy demarcation between the narrow ratio decidendi of a case, which is binding, and obiter, which they say may safely be ignored. This supposed dichotomy is an oversimplification of how the common law develops. The traditional view is that “a case is only an authority for what it actually decides”. Care must be taken in determining how broadly or how narrowly to draw “what it actually decides”. Beyond the ratio decidendi which is generally rooted in the facts, the legal point decided by this Court may be as narrow as the jury instruction at issue in Sellars or as broad as the Oakes test. All obiter do not have, and are not intended to have, the same weight. The weight decreases as one moves from the dispositive ratio decidendi to a wider circle of analysis which is obviously intended for guidance and which should be accepted as authoritative. Beyond that, there will be commentary, examples or exposition that are intended to be helpful and may be found to be persuasive, but are certainly not “binding” in the sense the Sellars principle in its most exaggerated form would have it. The objective of the exercise is to promote certainty in the law, not to stifle its growth and creativity. To the extent that obiter statements in this Court’s earlier s. 13 cases are inconsistent with the rationale of compulsion (the “quid pro quo”), they should no longer be regarded as authoritative. [52‑53] [57] [59]
The result of a purposeful interpretation of s. 13 is that an accused will lose the Mannion advantage in relation to prior volunteered testimony but his or her protection against the use of prior compelled testimony will be strengthened. The two different situations will be treated differently instead of homogenized, and the unpredictability inherent in sorting out attacks on credibility from attempts at incrimination will be avoided. [60]
Cases Cited
Overruled: R. v. Mannion, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 272; overruled in part: R. v. Kuldip, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 618, rev’g (1988), 40 C.C.C. (3d) 11; distinguished: Dubois v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; R. v. Noël, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 433, 2002 SCC 67, rev’g (2001), 156 C.C.C. (3d) 17; R. v. Allen, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 223, 2003 SCC 18, rev’g (2002), 208 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 250, 2002 NFCA 2; referred to: R. v. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; R. v. Shearing, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 33, 2002 SCC 58; R. v. Lyttle, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 193, 2004 SCC 5; R. v. Calder, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 660; R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; R. v. B. (K.G.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; R. v. Robinson, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 683; Clark v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 680; United States v. Burns, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283, 2001 SCC 7; Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; Reference re Ng Extradition (Can.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 858; Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489; Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561; Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; Bliss v. Attorney General of Canada, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; Quinn v. Leathem, [1901] A.C. 495; R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; Sellars v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; Re Haldimand‑Norfolk Regional Health Unit and Ontario Nurses’ Association (1981), 120 D.L.R. (3d) 101; R. v. Sansregret, [1984] 1 W.W.R. 720; R. v. Barrow (1984), 65 N.S.R. (2d) 1; Clark v. Canadian National Railway Co. (1985), 17 D.L.R. (4th) 58; Scarff v. Wilson (1988), 33 B.C.L.R. (2d) 290; Moses v. Shore Board Builders Ltd. (1993), 106 D.L.R. (4th) 654; Friedmann Equity Developments Inc. v. Final Note Ltd. (1998), 41 O.R. (3d) 712; Cardella v. Minister of National Revenue (2001), 268 N.R. 168, 2001 FCA 39; R. v. Chartrand (1992), 74 C.C.C. (3d) 409; R. v. Hynes (1999), 26 C.R. (5th) 1; R. v. Vu (2004), 184 C.C.C. (3d) 545, 2004 BCCA 230; McDiarmid Lumber Ltd. v. God’s Lake First Nation (2005), 251 D.L.R. (4th) 93, 2005 MBCA 22; Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; Valente v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑5, s. 5 .
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 11 (c), 13 .
Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S‑26, s. 40(1) .
Authors Cited
Devinat, Mathieu. “L’Autorité des obiter dicta de la Cour suprême” (1998), 77 Can. Bar Rev. 1.
Lambert, Douglas. “Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta” (1993), 51 Advocate (B.C.) 689.
Wilson, Bertha. “Decision‑making in the Supreme Court” (1986), 36 U.T.L.J. 227.
APPEALS from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Southin, Newbury and Hall JJ.A.) (2003), 186 B.C.A.C. 106, 306 W.A.C. 106, 179 C.C.C. (3d) 307, 14 C.R. (6th) 241, 111 C.R.R. (2d) 1, [2003] B.C.J. No. 2068 (QL), 2003 BCCA 476, upholding the convictions of the accused for first degree murder. Appeals dismissed.
Gil D. McKinnon, Q.C., and Lisa Sturgess, for the appellants.
Alexander Budlovsky and Nikos Harris, for the respondent.
Kenneth J. Yule, Q.C., and Ronald C. Reimer, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.
M. David Lepofsky, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
1 Binnie J. _ In their retrial on a charge of first degree murder the appellants told a different story under oath than they had five years earlier at their first trial on the same charge. They were cross-examined at the subsequent trial on these prior inconsistent statements. They were again convicted of first degree murder. They claim this use of prior statements violated their constitutional right against self-incrimination guaranteed by s. 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .
2 The right against self-incrimination is of course one of the cornerstones of our criminal law. The right to stand silent before the accusations of the state has its historical roots in the general revulsion against the practices of the Star Chamber, and in modern times is intimately linked to our adversarial system of criminal justice and the presumption of innocence. Section 13 of the Charter gives constitutional protection to a more specific privilege against testimonial self-incrimination. In Dubois v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350, the Court stated at p. 358 that
the purpose of s. 13 , when the section is viewed in the context of s. 11 (c) and (d), is to protect individuals from being indirectly compelled to incriminate themselves, to ensure that the Crown will not be able to do indirectly that which s. 11 (c) prohibits. [Emphasis added.]
It seems a long stretch from the important purpose served by a right designed to protect against compelled self-incrimination to the proposition advanced by the appellants in the present case, namely that an accused can volunteer one story at his or her first trial, have it rejected by the jury, then after obtaining a retrial on an unrelated ground of appeal volunteer a different and contradictory story to a jury differently constituted in the hope of a better result because the second jury is kept in the dark about the inconsistencies.
3 The protective policy of s. 13 must be considered in light of the countervailing concern that an accused, by tailoring his or her testimony at successive trials on the same indictment, may obtain through unexposed lies and contradictions an unjustified acquittal, thereby bringing into question the credibility of the trial process itself. Effective cross-examination lies at the core of a fair trial: R. v. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577, at p. 608; R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595, at p. 663; R. v. Shearing, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 33, 2002 SCC 58, at para. 76; R. v. Lyttle, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 193, 2004 SCC 5, at para. 41. Catching a witness in self-contradictions is one of the staples of effective cross-examination.
4 Having said that, there are observations in the Court’s previous s. 13 jurisprudence that can fairly be said to fuel the appellants’ argument (none of which escaped their counsel’s skilful attention). It is therefore necessary to return to the foundational case of Dubois and trace the subsequent jurisprudence to clarify the role and function of s. 13 , and to explain why the appellants’ interpretation of s. 13 overshoots its purpose, and why it must therefore be rejected. The appeals, in the result, will be dismissed.
I. Introduction
5 The present case arises out of a botched “rip-off” of a marijuana-growing operation (“grow-op”) at Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. The appellants admit they carried out the rip-off, stealing 170 marijuana plants, in the course of which the in-house caretaker of the grow-op was murdered. He was suffocated by 24 feet of duct tape being wound around his head, blocking the passage of air to his nose and mouth. The appellants admit their involvement. They accept culpability for manslaughter. At issue is whether the proper verdict is manslaughter or murder.
6 The Crown’s case rested on both physical evidence and out-of-court statements by both appellants to undercover police officers. In accordance with Dubois, the Crown did not attempt to file at the retrial as part of its case-in-chief the testimony of the appellants at their first trial.
7 At the close of the Crown’s case on the retrial, both appellants decided to testify. As he had at the first trial, Henry again claimed that he was intoxicated, but other than remembering being intoxicated he now admitted to no significant recollection of what happened. Riley testified in chief that while he had “on occasion” lied at the first trial he now had a clear recollection that he was not in the room when the fatal winding took place. He argued that his candour in admitting previous falsehoods was a badge of present truthfulness. Riley’s defence strategy at the retrial thus incorporated his testimony at the previous trial. Henry’s defence was more simple. Not only did he claim to recall less at the second trial than he testified to at the first trial, at times he seemed to suggest that he did not even recall that an earlier trial had taken place. The Crown took the view that it was entitled to cross-examine both appellants on the testimony given at the prior trial for the purpose of impeaching their credibility, and did so, relying in this respect on R. v. Kuldip, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 618. The defence says that such cross-examination even for the purpose of impeachment of credibility was unfair, but in any event that the distinction in these circumstances between the purposes of impeachment of credibility and incrimination is illusory. Reliance was placed on R. v. Noël, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 433, 2002 SCC 67, and R. v. Allen, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 223, 2003 SCC 18, to exclude the damaging inconsistencies. The Crown, for its part, says that the accused in volunteering their testimony at the second trial stepped outside the protection of s. 13 , and that any observations to the contrary in the Court’s previous s. 13 jurisprudence should be reconsidered. Thus issue was joined on the proper scope of s. 13 .
8 I pause at this juncture to observe that both parties view with scepticism the idea that the trier of fact can truly isolate the purpose of impeaching credibility from the purpose of incrimination. They agree on the problem but disagree about the solution. The appellants’ solution, relying on Noël, is that unless the statements used to contradict the present testimony were innocuous when made at the first trial, and still innocuous at the second trial, they should be altogether excluded, i.e. even for the limited purpose of challenging credibility. They wish to see a roll-back of Kuldip. Otherwise, they fear, the contradictions may well be used by the trier of fact for the forbidden purpose of incrimination. The Crown also recognizes the troublesome nature of the distinction but, relying on Kuldip, says that fair trial considerations absolutely require that the contradictions in the evidence of an accused be exposed. The Crown then goes further than Kuldip in saying that the trier of fact should be able to make of the contradictions what it wishes, including drawing an inference of guilt, and indeed that a realistic appraisal of the trial process permits no other conclusion, human nature being what it is.
9 It has long been recognized that the distinction between credibility and incrimination in this particular context is “troublesome” (as Lamer C.J. described it in Kuldip, at p. 635) and “difficult” (as Martin J.A. described it in Kuldip when the case was before the Ontario Court of Appeal ((1988), 40 C.C.C. (3d) 11, at p. 23)). As both the defence lawyers and the prosecutors agree that a problem exists, the question is: what should be done about it, having regard to the 20 years of experience since Dubois?
II. Facts
10 On October 17, 2001, a jury convicted the two appellants of the first degree murder of Timothy Langmead, who had operated a marijuana “grow-op” at Port Coquitlam, B.C. In the course of a “rip-off” of that operation by the appellants, Langmead was tied to a chair, had duct tape wound around his mouth and nose, and suffocated. At their first trial in 1996 the appellants admitted their involvement in the unlawful confinement that led up to his death, but they pleaded diminished responsibility because of intoxication.
11 The appellant Riley and the victim Langmead were acquaintances. They had both done work over the years for the same marijuana dealer. In fact Riley had helped set up the marijuana grow-op in Port Coquitlam that was being tended by Langmead on the night Langmead was killed. Riley claimed that he was owed $5,000 to $10,000 by the drug dealer for wiring a bypass of the hydro meter and other services. On the night of June 8, 1994, he and two accomplices planned to help themselves to some marijuana plants by way of compensation.
12 Riley and the appellant Henry knew each other from high school in the B.C. Interior. The two of them, along with another individual (Gabe Abbott, who was not charged) drove to Langmead’s house. They said they expected that Langmead would not be home, but he was, or came home shortly after they entered the house. Riley knew that Langmead recognized him from their earlier dealings. Although the details are not clear, it seems there was some struggle between Riley and Langmead. Once subdued, Langmead was put in a chair and his arms secured by rope or duct tape. He began to yell. Tape was applied to his mouth. The question was whether Henry or Riley applied the fatal windings of 24 feet of duct tape to Langmead’s mouth and nose, or whether it was both of them, and with what intent. After the killing, the three intruders stole marijuana plants, a guitar, a VCR and a van. They took Langmead’s body with them. They drove a couple of hours to the Alexandra Bridge in the Fraser Canyon, threw the body into the river and rolled the van over a cliff. Nine days later, Langmead’s body was found floating downstream. The duct tape was still wound around his head.
13 The police mounted an undercover operation and obtained incriminating statements from both of the appellants boasting of responsibility for the death of Langmead. After Riley’s arrest, he made some further admissions to the police.
14 Both appellants were convicted of first degree murder, but in 1999 the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had failed to properly instruct the jury on the defence of intoxication. A new trial was ordered: (1999), 117 B.C.A.C. 49, 1999 BCCA 22.
15 At the second trial Henry continued to advance the defence of intoxication but Riley largely resiled from it, seeking instead to use his greater recollection of events to push the responsibility onto Henry. He testified to having assisted in securing Langmead’s mouth with a few small pieces of tape only to stop him yelling, and said that thereafter Henry was alone with Langmead. Both men, through their counsel, again admitted criminal responsibility for manslaughter. The only live issue at the second trial, as at the first trial, was whether it was a case of murder.
1. Relevant Enactments
16 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5
5. (1) No witness shall be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer to the question may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person.
(2) Where with respect to any question a witness objects to answer on the ground that his answer may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person, and if but for this Act, or the Act of any provincial legislature, the witness would therefore have been excused from answering the question, then although the witness is by reason of this Act or the provincial Act compelled to answer, the answer so given shall not be used or admissible in evidence against him in any criminal trial or other criminal proceeding against him thereafter taking place, other than a prosecution for perjury in the giving of that evidence or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
2. Judicial History
(a) The Trial Judge’s Instructions on the Use of Prior Inconsistent Statements
17 The trial judge instructed the jury that they could use a witness’s prior inconsistent statement whether given “under oath or otherwise” to assess the credibility of that witness’s testimony, but that they could not use the prior statement for proof of its truth unless the witness adopted the statement as true. There was no objection by defence counsel to this portion of the charge.
18 Dealing specifically with references in the testimony to “another proceeding”, the trial judge instructed the jury that they were not to speculate as to the nature or outcome of those proceedings. He also reminded the jury that Riley had admitted to lying under oath, and that this was a factor to be considered in assessing his credibility as a witness.
(b) The British Columbia Court of Appeal ((2003), 186 B.C.A.C. 106, 2003 BCCA 476)
19 A three-judge panel of the British Columbia Court of Appeal divided on the scope to be given to this Court’s decision in Noël. In Southin J.A.’s analysis, Noël stands for the proposition that the testimony of a witness tending to prove him guilty of an offence, if given on someone else’s trial, could not be used at his own subsequent trial for that same offence. The protection did not apply to the retrial of the same accused on the same charge.
20 Newbury J.A. took the view that on the facts both appellants had “opened the door” in their own testimony to being cross-examined on the prior inconsistent statements given at the first trial. The trade-off between the right of the Crown to compel a witness to answer questions _ the response to which might incriminate him _ and the right of an accused qua witness not to incriminate himself, does not apply where he has chosen to testify regarding previous incriminating statements given by himself in the first trial. Here the appellants’ testimony had not been compelled; rather, it was offered in the second trial in an apparent attempt to gain credibility. The Crown was entitled to cross-examine on that evidence, she held.
21 Hall J.A., dissenting, considered that Noël had narrowed the permissible ambit of cross-examination of an accused in a retrial of the same charge. On this view the cross-examination at the second trial of both appellants infringed the prohibition imposed by s. 13 of the Charter . The Crown used portions of Riley’s previous testimony to show that he was more of a direct participant in the death of the victim than he had acknowledged in his testimony-in-chief at the second trial. The Crown’s cross-examination of both appellants on the prior inconsistent statements was not just directed to credibility. Its effect was to incriminate them as being active participants in the murder. This was contrary to the principles laid down in Noël and Allen. He was not persuaded that the verdicts concerning both men would necessarily have been the same absent the error. He would have allowed the appeals of both appellants and ordered a third trial on the same charge. The appeal thus comes to us as of right based on Hall J.A.’s dissent on the proper scope of Noël and Allen.
III. Analysis
22 The consistent theme in the s. 13 jurisprudence is that “the purpose of s. 13 . . . is to protect individuals from being indirectly compelled to incriminate themselves” (Dubois, at p. 358, and reiterated in Kuldip, at p. 629). That same purpose was flagged in Noël, the Court’s most recent examination of s. 13 , by Arbour J., at para. 21:
Section 13 reflects a long-standing form of statutory protection against compulsory self-incrimination in Canadian law, and is best understood by reference to s. 5 of the Canada Evidence Act . Like the statutory protection, the constitutional one represents what Fish J.A. called a quid pro quo: when a witness who is compelled to give evidence in a court proceeding is exposed to the risk of self-incrimination, the state offers protection against the subsequent use of that evidence against the witness in exchange for his or her full and frank testimony. [Emphasis added.]
23 There is thus a consensus that s. 13 was intended to extend s. 5 of the Canada Evidence Act to give further and better effect to this purpose. As McIntyre J. pointed out in Dubois, in reasons that dissented in the result but not on this point, s. 13 “does not depend on any objection made by the witness giving the evidence. It is applicable and effective without invocation, and even where the witness in question is unaware of his rights” (p. 377). Further, s. 13 “is not limited to a question in respect of which a witness would have been entitled to refuse to answer at common law and its prohibition against the use of incriminating evidence is not limited to criminal proceedings. It confers a right against incrimination by the use of evidence given in one proceeding in any other proceedings” (p. 377). Noël, our most recent pronouncement, also agreed that s. 13 was intimately linked (though not necessarily limited to) the role and function traditionally served by s. 5 of the Canada Evidence Act .
24 Despite these broad areas of agreement, the Court’s s. 13 jurisprudence bristles with observations that enable the appellants to argue with a measure of indignation that notwithstanding the fact they were not (and could not be) compelled to testify at their first trial, they ought nevertheless to have been protected as volunteers at their second trial from exposure of the contradictory testimony they gave at the first trial, despite the misleading impression with which such non-disclosure would have left the jury. The search for truth, they say, is limited by constitutional considerations. The appellants rely in particular on observations made in Noël, even though Noël did not involve the retrial of an accused on the same indictment, but the trial of an accused whose previous testimony had been compelled at the trial of somebody else on charges related to the same subject matter. Noël was a classic application of s. 5(2) of the Canada Evidence Act , which in fact had wisely been invoked on Noël’s behalf at the earlier trial of that other person, who happened to be his brother. It is therefore desirable to retrace the essentials of the jurisprudence from Dubois to Noël to determine whether the appellants’ position on s. 13 is well founded.
1. The Scope of Section 13 of the Charter
25 Section 13 of the Charter precludes “incriminating evidence” given in one proceeding from being “used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings”. Incriminating evidence means “something ‘from which a trier of fact may infer that an accused is guilty of the crime charged’”: Kuldip, at p. 633. The meaning of this protection in the context of a retrial of an accused on the same charge was first considered in Dubois. The question was phrased in that case by Lamer J. (as he then was): “When a new trial is ordered on the same charge or on an included offence by a court of appeal, can the Crown adduce as evidence-in-chief the testimony given by an accused at the former trial?” (p. 353 (emphasis added)). Dubois was charged with second degree murder. At his first trial he admitted that he had killed the deceased but alleged justification. He was convicted, but successfully appealed the conviction and was granted a new trial on grounds of a misdirection to the jury. At the retrial, as part of its case-in-chief, the Crown read in Dubois’ testimony from the first trial over an objection by Dubois’ counsel based on s. 13 of the Charter . Dubois chose not to testify nor did he call any evidence. He was again convicted. The majority of our Court agreed that the testimony of the accused at the first trial could not be used by the Crown as part of its “case to meet” to incriminate the accused at the retrial on the same charge.
26 More specifically, Dubois concluded that the reference in s. 13 to “other proceedings” includes a retrial on the same indictment and that the term “witness” in s. 13 also applies to an accused testifying (voluntarily) in his or her own defence. Lamer J., for the majority, held that “given the nature and purpose of the [s. 13 ] right, which is essentially protection against self-incrimination, the issue of whether the testimony was compulsory or voluntary at the moment it was given is largely irrelevant. The focus of the right is on the second proceedings, the time at which the previous testimony is sought to be used, rather than the time at which it is given” (p. 361). At the second proceeding, however, Dubois was not a witness. He was exercising his absolute right not to testify at all. Therefore, as Lamer J. pointed out at p. 365: “I do not see how the evidence given by the accused to meet the case as it was in the first trial could become part of the Crown’s case against the accused in the second trial, without being in violation of s. 11 (d) [the presumption of innocence], and to a lesser extent of s. 11 (c) [the right not to be compelled to be a witness].”
27 In my view, the same result would have followed if at the retrial in the present case the appellants had chosen not to testify. Whether or not the appellants had been voluntary witnesses at the earlier trial would have been, in that respect, irrelevant. At the second trial the testimony, had the Crown been permitted to file it as part of the case-in-chief, would have been compelled, and its use, on a purposeful interpretation of s. 13 , prohibited.
28 Dubois was applied in R. v. Mannion, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 272, where, as in the present case, the Crown attempted to use prior inconsistent statements in the cross-examination of an accused at a retrial. The accused was charged with raping a woman in Edmonton. Shortly thereafter, but before an arrest could be made, he left Edmonton heading for British Columbia. Whether or not his departure could give rise to an inference of guilt depended in part on whether he knew of the rape investigation before he left. At the first trial he said that when he spoke to a police officer before his departure, he had been told that the officer wanted to see him concerning a rape. At the second trial, no doubt sensing the danger, he changed his story to say that while he knew the officer wanted to speak with him, he understood it was about his work as a police informant on unrelated matters, and he was afraid to speak to the officer because he had not lived up to certain obligations. At the second trial, the accused was cross-examined on the different explanation he gave at the first trial, which the Crown submitted for the truth of its content. McIntyre J., for the Court, held that the cross-examination was improper. In doing so, however, he focussed on the purpose of the cross-examination (incrimination), rather than the purpose of s. 13 (protection against compelled self-incrimination). McIntyre J., with the unanimous support of his colleagues, accepted that the result of the holding in Dubois (in which he had dissented) dictated the outcome in Mannion. The distinction between Dubois’ status as a compelled witness at the second trial and Mannion’s status as a volunteer at both trials was not commented upon.
29 The Court returned to a purposive interpretation in Kuldip. The accused was charged with failing to remain at the scene of a car accident with the intent of escaping civil or criminal liability. At his first trial he volunteered that he had reported the accident to a constable at a police station in Toronto whom he identified as P.C. Brown. The Crown established that Brown was not on duty on the day in question. At the retrial, the accused again chose to testify, but changed his story to accommodate that awkward fact. Lamer C.J. for the majority of the Court held that the accused was properly confronted with his prior inconsistent statement:
An interpretation of s. 13 which insulates such an accused from having previous inconsistent statements put to him/her on cross-examination where the only purpose of doing so is to challenge that accused’s credibility, would, in my view, “stack the deck” too highly in favour of the accused. [p. 636]
30 In other respects, Kuldip followed where Mannion had led. Lamer C.J. stated that the questions raised in the appeal were “identical to those examined by this Court in Mannion” (p. 628). The only difference in his view was that in Mannion, the purpose of the cross-examination was to incriminate, whereas in Kuldip it was to impeach credibility. A successful impeachment would do no mor