R. v. B. (K.G.)

R. v. B. (K.G.)
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1993-02-25
Report
[1993] 1 SCR 740
Case number
22351
Judges
Lamer, Antonio; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank
On appeal from
Ontario
Subjects
Courts
Criminal law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 22351
Decision Content
R. v. B. (K.G.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
K.G.B. Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. B. (K.G.)
File No.: 22351.
1992: October 8; 1993: February 25.
Present: Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Criminal law ‑‑ Evidence ‑‑ Prior inconsistent statements ‑‑ Admissibility ‑‑ Witnesses' videotaped statements to police implicating accused as the murderer ‑‑ Witnesses recanting statements at trial ‑‑ Whether prior inconsistent statements admissible as evidence of the truth of their contents ‑‑ Whether common law rule as to the use of prior inconsistent statements should be changed ‑‑ Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑5, s. 9 .
Courts ‑‑ Stare decisis ‑‑ Supreme Court of Canada ‑‑ Prior inconsistent statements admissible only to impeach witness's credibility ‑‑ Whether common law rule as to use of prior inconsistent statements should be changed ‑‑ If so, whether change to be made by Parliament rather than the courts.
The accused and three of his friends were involved in a fight with two men. In the course of the fight, one of the youths pulled a knife and stabbed one of the men in the chest and killed him. The four youths immediately fled the scene. About two weeks later, the accused's friends were interviewed separately by the police. Each was accompanied by a parent and in one case by a lawyer and each was advised of his right to counsel. It was also made clear that they were under no obligation to answer the questions and that they were not "at this time" charged with any offence. With the youths' consent the interviews were videotaped. In their statements, they told the police that the accused had made statements to them in which he acknowledged that he thought he had caused the death of the victim by the use of a knife. The accused was charged with second degree murder and tried in Youth Court. At trial, the three youths recanted their earlier statements and, during the Crown's cross‑examination pursuant to s. 9 of the Canada Evidence Act , they stated they had lied to the police to exculpate themselves from possible involvement. Although the trial judge had no doubt that the recantations were false, the witnesses' prior inconsistent statements could not be tendered as proof that the accused actually made the admissions. Under the traditional common law position, they could only be used to impeach the witnesses' credibility. In the absence of other sufficient identification evidence, the trial judge acquitted the accused and the Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal. Prior to the hearing in this Court, the three witnesses pleaded guilty to perjury as a result of their testimony at trial. In this appeal, the Crown asks this Court to reconsider the common law rule which limits the use of prior inconsistent statements to impeaching the credibility of the witness.
Held: The appeal should be allowed and a new trial ordered.
Per Lamer C.J. and Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.: The time has come for the rule limiting the use of prior inconsistent statements to impeaching the credibility of the witness (the "orthodox rule") to be replaced by a new rule recognizing the changed means and methods of proof in modern society. The history of the orthodox rule demonstrates that it has not enjoyed consistent or unqualified support. Considering a change to the orthodox rule is not a matter better left to Parliament; the rule itself is judge‑made and lends itself to judicial reform, and it is a natural and incremental progression in the development of the law of hearsay in Canada by this Court. The guidelines which direct this Court's exercise of its jurisdiction to overrule its previous decisions adopting the orthodox rule do not suggest that it should do anything other than what it thinks best in reconsidering the orthodox rule: a reformed rule would not violate the Charter, the existing rule has been attenuated by developments in the law of hearsay and is somewhat, if not overly, technical, and reforming the rule would not directly expand the scope of criminal liability.
A reformed rule must carefully balance the accused's interests in a criminal trial with the interests of society in seeing justice done. Since the orthodox rule is an incarnation of the hearsay rule, a reformed rule must also deal with the "hearsay dangers" of admitting prior inconsistent statements for the truth of their contents ‑‑ namely, the absence of an oath or solemn affirmation when the statement was made, the inability of the trier of fact to assess the demeanour, and therefore the credibility, of the declarant when the statement was made, and the lack of contemporaneous cross‑examination by the opponent.
Following this Court's decisions in Khan and Smith, evidence of prior inconsistent statements of a witness other than an accused should be substantively admissible on a principled basis, the governing principles being the reliability of the evidence and its necessity. These criteria, however, must be adapted to the present context. As a threshold matter, the prior inconsistent statements will only be admissible if they would have been admissible as the witness's sole testimony, lest what would be excluded as the witness's primary evidence be admitted under the reformed rule simply because the witness has recanted.
The focus of the inquiry in the case of prior inconsistent statements is on the comparative reliability of the prior statement and the testimony offered at trial. Additional indicia and guarantees of reliability to those outlined in Khan and Smith must thus be secured in order to bring the prior statement to a comparable standard of reliability before such statements are admitted as substantive evidence. In this context, the absence of an oath and the inability of the trier of fact to assess the declarant's demeanour are the only "hearsay dangers" which present real concerns. The criterion of reliability will therefore be satisfied when the circumstances in which the prior statement was made provide sufficient guarantees of its trustworthiness with respect to these two dangers.
There will be sufficient circumstantial guarantees of reliability to allow the jury to make substantive use of the statement: (1) if the statement is made under oath, solemn affirmation or solemn declaration following an explicit warning to the witness as to the existence of severe criminal sanctions for the making of a false statement; (2) if the statement is videotaped in its entirety; and (3) if the opposing party, whether the Crown or the defence, has a full opportunity to cross‑examine the witness at trial respecting the statement. Alternatively, other circumstantial guarantees of reliability may suffice to render such statements substantively admissible, provided that the judge is satisfied that the circumstances provide adequate assurances of reliability in place of those which the hearsay rule traditionally requires. With the oath, solemn affirmation or solemn declaration and the warning, the first "hearsay danger" is satisfied. The witness is clearly made aware of the gravity of the situation and his duty to tell the truth. The presence of an oath, solemn affirmation or solemn declaration also increases the evidentiary value of the statement when it is admitted at trial. The trier of fact will have the opportunity to choose between two sworn statements and will not be asked to accept unsworn testimony over sworn testimony, or to render a verdict based on unsworn testimony. While it is true that the oath in itself has no power to ensure truthfulness in some witnesses, the fact that both statements were made under oath removes resort to the absence of an oath as an indicium of the alleged unreliability of the prior inconsistent statement. With a videotaped statement, the second "hearsay danger" is also satisfied. The indicia of credibility, and therefore reliability, are available to the trier of fact. Not only does the trier have access to the full range of non‑verbal indicia of credibility, but there is also a reproduction of the statement which is fully accurate, eliminating the danger of inaccurate recounting. In a very real sense, the evidence ceases to be hearsay, since the declarant is brought before the trier of fact. Finally, while a cross‑examination of the witness at trial does not satisfy entirely the absence of contemporaneous cross‑examination, given the other guarantees of trustworthiness, the third "hearsay danger" is not a sufficient reason to exclude the statement from the jury as substantive evidence. The practical difficulties in requiring contemporaneous cross‑examination tip the balance in favour of allowing cross‑examination at trial to serve as a substitute.
Unavailability is not an indispensable condition of necessity. The criterion of necessity must be given a flexible definition, capable of encompassing diverse situations. In the case of prior inconsistent statements, evidence of the same value cannot be expected from the recanting witness or other sources. Where a sufficient degree of reliability is established, the trier of fact should be allowed to weigh both statements in light of the witness's explanation for the change.
When a party gives notice that it will seek to make substantive use of a prior statement, the trial judge must on the voir dire held under s. 9 of the Canada Evidence Act satisfy himself that the indicia of reliability necessary to admit hearsay evidence of prior statements are present and genuine. If they are, he must then examine the circumstances under which the statement was obtained, to satisfy himself that the statement supported by the indicia of reliability was made voluntarily if to a person in authority, and that there are no other factors which would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute if the statement was admitted as substantive evidence. In most cases, as in this case, the party seeking to admit the prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence will have to establish that these requirements have been satisfied on a balance of probabilities. The trial judge is not to decide whether the prior inconsistent statement is true, or more reliable than the present testimony, as that is a matter for the trier of fact. Once this process is complete, and all of its constituent elements satisfied, the trial judge need not issue the standard limiting instruction to the jury, but may instead tell the jury that they may take the statement as substantive evidence of its content, or, if he is sitting alone, make substantive use of the statement, giving the evidence the appropriate weight after taking into account all of the circumstances. In either case, the trial judge must direct the trier of fact to consider carefully these circumstances in assessing the credibility of the prior inconsistent statement relative to the witness's testimony at trial. Where the prior statement does not have the necessary circumstantial guarantees of reliability, and so cannot pass the threshold test on the voir dire, but the party tendering the prior statement otherwise satisfies the requirements of s. 9(1) or (2) of the Canada Evidence Act , the statement may still be tendered into evidence, but the trial judge must instruct the jury in the terms of the orthodox rule.
In this case, while the statements of the recanting witnesses were videotaped, and the accused's counsel had a full opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses at trial, the statements were not made under oath, solemn affirmation or by a solemn declaration. Considering himself bound by the orthodox rule, the trial judge refused to consider the admissibility of the statements. Given his expressed belief that the witnesses were lying at trial, it is possible that he might have found sufficient indicia of reliability to admit the statements as substantive evidence. A new trial should be ordered at which the reformed rule relating to prior inconsistent statements will, if necessary, be applied by the trial judge, who will decide whether sufficient indicia of reliability and necessity are present in this case, and instruct the trier of fact to afford the prior statements the appropriate weight in reaching a verdict.
Per L'Heureux‑Dubé and Cory JJ.: While the rule against the substantive use of prior statements should be changed, the administering of an oath or solemn affirmation should not be regarded as an essential safeguard for ensuring the veracity of a statement. Neither the taking of the oath nor the possibility of imprisonment arising from perjury charges resulting from testimony at trial can in themselves ensure that a witness will tell the truth. It is the reliability that can be placed upon the statement that should determine its admissibility. That reliability will depend on a number of factors, among others, whether the witness giving the statement is subject to criminal prosecution for making a deliberately false statement. The less stringent requirements for prosecution for offences like obstructing justice, fabricating evidence or public mischief, which, unlike perjury, do not require corroboration, and the more frequent prosecutions for these offences would have a better deterrent effect upon those who might be prone to make false statements. A requirement that the police administer an oath to the witness cannot further deter the witness from lying and seems to be superfluous. Liability for these offences does not rest in any way on the oath and a witness cannot be found guilty of perjury arising from a sworn declaration made in the course of a criminal investigation. The absence of the oath should thus not presumptively stand in the way of the admissibility for substantive purposes of a prior inconsistent statement. Although it would be preferable to give a warning to a witness of the possibility of criminal proceedings if that person gives a false statement, it may not be essential to give such a warning in order to render the statement admissible. Canadians are well aware and indeed expect that witnesses who make deliberately false statements to the police would be subject to criminal prosecution.
A videotaped statement with its complete and comprehensive record of the questions posed, the answers given and the demeanour of the witness, will often serve as a complete answer to the issues of reliability and voluntariness of the statement. It is not essential, however, that a statement be videotaped in order to be admissible. Where a complete and comprehensive record of the statement is preserved together with satisfactory evidence of the circumstances of the interview and the demeanour of the witness all the requirements on this count will be met. If the prior statement, while not videotaped, meets all the criteria of reliability it should be admissible.
While at the time the statement was made the witness was not subjected to the rigours of cross‑examination, if the prior statement is ruled admissible then the witness will be subject to cross‑examination at trial where the trier of fact will be able to study the witness's demeanour throughout his testimony and to assess what weight, if any, should be attached to all the evidence of the witness including the prior statement. The opposing party, whether the Crown or the defence, will also be able to explore the witness's reasons for the court room recantation and the veracity of his testimony.
A prior inconsistent statement should be admitted for all purposes if upon a voir dire the trial judge is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the following conditions are met: (1) the evidence contained in the prior statement is such that it would be admissible if given in court; (2) the statement has been made voluntarily by the witness and is not the result of any undue pressure, threats or inducements; (3) the statement was made in circumstances, which viewed objectively would bring home to the witness the importance of telling the truth; (4) that the statement is reliable in that it has been fully and accurately transcribed or recorded; and (5) the statement was made in circumstances that the witness would be liable to criminal prosecution for giving a deliberately false statement.
If at the conclusion of the voir dire the prior inconsistent statement is ruled admissible for all purposes then, at some time, the trial judge should advise the jury that, although the statement has been ruled admissible, it is up to them to decide what weight, if any, they should attach to it. In assessing the statement, the jury should take into account all the circumstances in which it was made and should be instructed that they may consider that the statement should be given less weight because it was not subject to cross‑examination at the time it was made and because there was not the same opportunity to assess the demeanour of the witness as there would have been had the statement been made in court.
In this case, an analysis of the conditions of admissibility indicates that it would be open to a judge conducting a voir dire at a new trial to find that the prior inconsistent statements met all the conditions for admissibility.
The Khan and Smith approach to hearsay evidence provides an alternative justification for changing the interpretation of s. 9 of the Canada Evidence Act as long as the threshold tests for reliability set out above are made a part of this approach.
Cases Cited
By Lamer C.J.
Applied: R. v. Smith, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; not followed: Deacon v. The King, [1947] S.C.R. 531; considered: McInroy v. The Queen, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 588, aff'g [1977] 4 W.W.R. 734; R. v. Duckworth (1916), 26 C.C.C. 314; R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; Watkins v. Olafson, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; referred to: Attorney General v. Hitchcock (1847), 16 L.J. Ex. 259; R. v. Mannion, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 272; R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; R. v. Kuldip, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 618; R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; Dubois v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; State v. Saporen, 285 N.W. 898 (1939); California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970); Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1965] A.C. 1001; R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; R. v. Potvin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 525; R. v. Williams (1985), 50 O.R. (2d) 321 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1985] 1 S.C.R. xiv; R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; Omychund v. Barker (1744), 1 Atk. 21, 26 E.R. 15; Reference re Truscott, [1967] S.C.R. 309; Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608; Khan v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (1992), 9 O.R. (3d) 641; Ibrahim v. The King, [1914] A.C. 599; Prosko v. The King (1922), 63 S.C.R. 226; Horvath v. The Queen, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 376; Rothman v. The Queen, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640; Piché v. The Queen, [1971] S.C.R. 23; Wright v. Beckett (1833), 1 M. & Rob. 414, 174 E.R. 143; Paramore v. State, 229 So.2d 855 (1969).
By Cory J.
Not followed: Deacon v. The King, [1947] S.C.R. 531; considered: R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; R. v. Smith, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; R. v. Boisjoly, [1972] S.C.R. 42; referred to: R. v. Moran (1987), 36 C.C.C. (3d) 225; R. v. L.S.L. (1991), 89 Sask. R. 267; R. v. Gravelle (1952), 103 C.C.C. 250; R. v. MacGillivray (1971), 3 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 227; R. v. Feger (1989), 36 Q.A.C. 26; R. v. J.(J.) (1988), 65 C.R. (3d) 371 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1989] 1 S.C.R. ix; R. v. Stapleton (1982), 66 C.C.C. (2d) 231; R. v. Howard (1972), 7 C.C.C. (2d) 211; Lessard v. La Reine, [1965] Que. Q.B. 631; R. v. Sevick (1930), 54 C.C.C. 92; R. v. Edwards (1986), 47 Sask. R. 303; R. v. Verma (1980), 28 A.R. 233; R. v. Lindstrom (1977), 33 N.S.R. (2d) 369; R. v. Martin (1969), 12 Crim. L.Q. 201; R. v. Snider (1953), 17 C.R. 136; California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970); Di Carlo v. United States, 6 F.2d 364 (1925); Gibbons v. State, 286 S.E.2d 717 (1982); Vézeau v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 277; R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; R. v. Pickett (1975), 28 C.C.C. (2d) 297; Coulombe v. La Reine, [1976] C.A. 327.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Act for the suppression of Voluntary and Extrajudicial Oaths, S.C. 1874, c. 37.
Act respecting Procedure in Criminal Cases, and other matters relating to Criminal Law, S.C. 1869, c. 29, s. 68.
Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑5, s. 9 .
Civil Evidence Act 1968 (U.K.), 1968, c. 64, s. 3(1)(a).
Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (U.K.), 17 & 18 Vict., c. 125, s. 22.
Constitution of the United States, Sixth Amendment.
Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, ss. 131 [rep. & sub. c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17 ], 134 [idem], 137, 139(2), 140(1) [idem, s. 19 ].
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1975, S.C. 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 6.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1985, S.C. 1985, c. 19, s. 17.
Federal Rules of Evidence, 28 U.S.C. app., Rule 801(d)(1)(A).
Young Offenders Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. Y‑1, s. 56(2) (c), (d).
Authors Cited
Canada. Federal/Provincial Task Force on Uniform Rules of Evidence. Report of the Federal/Provincial Task Force on the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Toronto: Carswell, 1982.
Canada. Law Reform Commission. Report on Evidence. Ottawa: The Commission, 1975.
Delisle, Ronald Joseph. "Cross‑examination of Own Witness on Previous Inconsistent Statement ‑‑ s. 9(2) Canada Evidence Act " (1978‑79), 21 Crim. L.Q. 162.
Delisle, Ronald Joseph. Evidence: Principles and Problems, 2nd ed. Toronto: Carswell, 1989.
Dugdale, D. F. "Against oath‑taking", [1985] N.Z.L.J. 404.
Graham, Michael H. "Employing Inconsistent Statements for Impeachment and as Substantive Evidence: A Critical Review and Proposed Amendments of Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A), 613, and 607" (1977), 75 Mich. L. Rev. 1565.
Grant, Alan. "Videotaping Police Questioning: a Canadian Experiment", [1987] Crim. L.R. 375.
Heaton‑Armstrong, Anthony, and David Wolchover. "Recording Witness Statements", [1992] Crim. L.R. 160.
Laskin, Bora. "The Role and Functions of Final Appellate Courts: The Supreme Court of Canada" (1975), 53 Can. Bar Rev. 469.
McCormick, Charles Tilford. McCormick on Evidence, vol. 2, 4th ed. By John William Strong, General Editor. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1992.
Miller, Joyce. "The Audio‑Visual Taping of Police Interviews With Suspects and Accused Persons by Halton Regional Police Force: An Evaluation". Ottawa: Law Reform Commission, 1988.
Morden, John Wilson. "Evidence ‑‑ Proof of Own Witness's Prior Inconsistent Statement Where "Adverse" ‑‑ Section 24, Evidence Act (Ont.)" (1962), 40 Can. Bar Rev. 96.
Morgan, Edmund M. "Hearsay Dangers and the Application of the Hearsay Concept" (1948), 62 Harv. L. Rev. 177.
Ontario. Law Reform Commission. Report on the Law of Evidence. Toronto: The Commission, 1976.
Schiff, Stanley. "The Previous Inconsistent Statement of Opponent's Witness" (1986), 36 U.T.L.J. 440.
Stuesser, Lee. "Admitting Prior Inconsistent Statements For Their Truth" (1992), 71 Can. Bar Rev. 48.
United States. Senate. Senate Report No. 93‑1277, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1974), reprinted in [1974] U.S. Cong. & Adm. News 7051.
Wigmore, John Henry. Evidence in Trials at Common Law, vol. 3A. Revised by James H. Chadbourn. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1970.
Wigmore, John Henry. Evidence in Trials at Common Law, vol. 5. Revised by James H. Chadbourn. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1974.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1991), 49 O.A.C. 30, dismissing the Crown's appeal from the accused's acquittal on a charge of second degree murder. Appeal allowed and new trial ordered.
S. Casey Hill and Scott C. Hutchison, for the appellant.
Keith E. Wright and Mary E. Misener, for the respondent.
//Lamer C.J.//
The judgment of Lamer C.J. and Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. was delivered by
Lamer C.J. -- The issue in this appeal is the substantive admissibility of prior inconsistent statements by a witness other than an accused. The Crown asks this Court to reconsider the common law rule which limits the use of such statements to impeaching the credibility of the witness. In my opinion, the time has come for the orthodox rule to be replaced by a new rule recognizing the changed means and methods of proof in modern society.
I - The Facts
On April 24, 1988, Joseph Wright and his brother Steven got off a bus at an intersection in Scarborough, Ontario. The brothers crossed the street and began walking home. At about the same time, the respondent and three other young men were driving past the same intersection. An argument started between the group in the car and the two men on the street and shortly thereafter a fight occurred. The brothers were unarmed. In the course of the fight one of the four persons from the vehicle pulled a knife, slashing twice at Joseph's face and then stabbing him in the chest. The stab wound to the chest penetrated Joseph's heart and killed him. The four young men then fled the scene.
About two weeks later, the three young men involved with the respondent in the incident were interviewed separately by the police. While the appellant states that the three witnesses approached the police to make their statements, the respondent notes that two of the witnesses testified that they approached the police only after the police came to their homes in connection with the police investigation of the killing, and the third witness testified that it was his mother's idea that he give a statement to the police. Each was accompanied by a parent and in one case by a lawyer and each was advised of his right to counsel. It was also made clear that they were under no obligation to answer questions put to them by the police, and while the police told the witnesses that they were not charged with any offence, the interviewers also added the qualification "at this time" in two of the interviews. With the youths' consent the interviews were videotaped.
In their statements, the three young men told the police that the respondent had made statements to them in which he acknowledged that he thought he had, or had, caused the death of the deceased by the use of a knife. The respondent was charged with second degree murder and he entered a plea of not guilty. Following an unsuccessful attempt by the Crown to have the case transferred to adult court, the respondent's trial commenced before Judge MacDonnell in Youth Court on November 14, 1989.
When called at trial by the Crown, the three young men refused to adopt their earlier statements respecting the admissions made by the respondent. The trial judge allowed the Crown to cross-examine them on their prior statements pursuant to s. 9 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-5 . They admitted they had made the statements to the police but said that they had lied to the police and that the respondent had not in fact made the incriminating statements that they had previously attributed to him. Their explanation for having lied to the police was that they did so to exculpate themselves from possible involvement. They claimed to have either forgotten what occurred when the respondent was alleged to have made his inculpatory statements, or to have not heard the respondent.
The trial judge held that the only use that could be made of the prior inconsistent statements of the three witnesses was with respect to their credibility, and that the prior inconsistent statements could not be used as evidence of the truth of the matters stated therein; that is, they could not be tendered as proof that the respondent actually made the admissions. The only other evidence of the identity of the assailant was identification evidence provided by the victim's brother, who identified the accused at trial (in a "dock" identification with little evidential value) and testified as to the appearance of the deceased's assailant. The trial judge found that the dock identification was "naked opinion given 19 months after the event", and that the brother had only a poor opportunity to observe his brother's attacker. Doubts also existed in connection with his latter evidence because of several inconsistencies between elements of his description of the attacker shortly after the incident and elements of his description at trial, including: the type of jacket and pants worn by the assailant, the clothing of the other youths, and the height and weight of the assailant relative to the other youths. At trial, the respondent argues, several other elements of the brother's description did not match the respondent's characteristics, including: the colour of the respondent's skin relative to the other youths, the fact that the assailant held the knife in his right hand while the respondent was described as left-handed by two of the recanting witnesses, whether the assailant wore jewellery, and the colour of the assailant's hair.
As a result of the doubt which existed with respect to the issue of identification, and in the absence of other admissible evidence, the trial judge acquitted the respondent.
The appellant appealed the acquittal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which stated that it was bound by the decisions of this Court, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Between the filing of the parties' facta and the hearing of this appeal, the three witnesses pleaded guilty to perjury. The Crown brought a motion on the day of oral argument in this appeal to adduce this new evidence which it asserted was relevant to two issues: (i) whether the operation of a revised rule would tend to enhance or detract from the public's perception of and respect for the administration of justice, and (ii) whether the application of the orthodox rule had caused a miscarriage of justice in this case. Counsel for the respondent consented to the admission of this fresh evidence on this basis and for this purpose alone, and not as evidence of the respondent's innocence or guilt. Counsel for the Crown agreed to this limitation.
II - Judgments Below
Youth Court
Judge MacDonnell first assessed the evidence with respect to the events which led up to Joseph Wright's death and found that the victim's brother essentially told the truth regarding the sequence of events preceding and during the fight. He rejected the evidence of the three young men who were present in the car with the respondent. Judge MacDonnell held:
... those three witnesses were obviously and deliberately untruthful in their sworn evidence before me with respect to material matters. Their account of how this fight occurred is not only at odds with the evidence of Steven Wright, Sean Dowling and in my opinion, Ruth Kazan [two independent witnesses], it is at odds with common sense.
Judge MacDonnell next considered whether the Crown had proved that the person who used the knife was the respondent. In this regard, the judge found that the identification evidence of the victim's brother was weak and could not, standing by itself, establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent was the person with the knife. Judge MacDonnell was also of the opinion that there was no circumstantial evidence supporting this identification evidence. With respect to the respondent's friends' statements to the police that the respondent admitted to using the knife in the fight with Joseph Wright, Judge MacDonnell held that he was precluded from considering these statements as evidence that the respondent made those admissions. As to their testimony given at trial, the judge was of the view that the three witnesses lied under oath. He stated that he disbelieved their testimony "based on my assessment of the entirety of the content of their testimony and, very importantly, the manner in which it was given. With respect to the latter point, in my opinion they were anything but forthright." He concluded on this point:
In my opinion, each of these three witnesses lied to me with respect to having lied to the police about what the accused said to them. I have no doubt that their recantations are false. That is, I have no doubt that on this point they were telling the police the truth as they knew it about what the accused said. That finding is not necessarily the same as a finding that the accused made the admissions, but it is tantamount to that finding.
Judge MacDonnell reluctantly followed, however, the traditional common law position that the only use that could be made of the prior inconsistent statements of a witness other than an accused which the witness does not adopt was to impeach his credibility. The judge refused to apply the reasoning of Estey J., concurring in the result in McInroy v. The Queen, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 588, which would expand significantly the use to be made of unadopted prior inconsistent statements.
Court of Appeal (1991), 49 O.A.C. 30
The Ontario Court of Appeal refused to reconsider the present validity of the common law rule as to the use of prior inconsistent statements, rejecting the appellant's submission that in the particular circumstances of this case the premises upon which the rule was founded were not applicable. The court held (at p. 32):
That prior inconsistent statements of a witness may only be used in assessing the credibility of a witness, and may not be used as evidence of the truth of the matters stated therein, is a principle of criminal law in Canada of long standing which was recognized in Deacon v. The King [[1947] S.C.R. 531]. In R. v. Mannion [[1986] 2 S.C.R. 272], the rule was restated by the Supreme Court of Canada. In that case, the court was invited to review the rule so as to make admissible as evidence of their contents such past contradictory statements by nonparty witnesses where it is shown that they had been made under oath and subject to cross-examination, but the court found it unnecessary to deal with that issue. In Corbett v. The Queen [[1988] 1 S.C.R. 670], the rule was again restated, and more recently in R. v. Kuldip [[1990] 3 S.C.R. 618], a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, released December 7, 1990, the principle appears to have been once again reaffirmed.
The court concluded that it was bound by the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada and that it was inappropriate for it to review the traditional rule. Therefore, it dismissed the appeal.
III - Grounds for Appeal
The Crown now appeals to this Court on the following ground: whether the Ontario Court of Appeal erred in law when it held that the learned trial judge did not err in law when he held that the prior inconsistent statements of several witnesses could not be used as evidence of the facts alleged in the statements. In urging this Court to reconsider or refrain from reconsidering the orthodox rule, the parties also addressed the issues of stare decisis and whether the change in the law proposed by the appellant should be made by Parliament rather than this Court.
IV - Analysis
A. History and Development of the Orthodox Rule
In his reasons in McInroy, supra, Estey J. traced the origins of the orthodox rule that prior inconsistent statements are admissible only to impeach the credibility of a witness, and not as evidence of the truth of their contents. The rule was first stated by Denman C.J. in Wright v. Beckett (1833), 1 M. & Rob. 414, 174 E.R. 143, at p. 145 E.R.:
The other danger [of permitting cross-examination of a witness found to be hostile by the party which called the witness] is, that the statement, which is admissible only to contradict the witness, may be taken as substantive proof in the cause. But this danger equally arises from the contradiction of an adverse witness: it is met by the Judge pointing out the distinction to the jury, and warning them not to be misled. It is not so abstruse but that Judges may explain it, and juries perceive its reasonableness; and it is probable that they most commonly discard entirely the evidence of him who has stated falsehoods, whether sworn or unsworn.
Estey J. noted that courts continued to apply this rule after the enactment of The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (U.K.), 17 & 18 Vict., c. 125, s. 22, and its criminal law parallel in S.C. 1869, c. 29, s. 68, which have survived in s. 9(1) of the Canada Evidence Act . However, Estey J. also observed that the rule was not unchallenged in the 19th century. In Attorney General v. Hitchcock (1847), 16 L.J. Ex. 259, at p. 261, Pollock C.B., Parke B. concurring, said:
If you ask a witness whether he has not made a certain statement which would be material, and opposed to part of his testimony, you may then call witnesses to prove that he has made the statement, and the jury are at liberty to believe either the one account or the other.
The debate over the merits of the orthodox rule continued into the 20th century in decisions like R. v. Duckworth (1916), 26 C.C.C. 314 (Ont. S.C., App. Div.), in which the court affirmed the orthodox rule of limited admissibility by a 4 to 1 margin. For the majority, Clute J. characterized the Crown's suggestion that evidence of prior inconsistent statements by Crown witnesses who recanted should be substantively admissible as (at p. 324) a rather "startling proposition and one to which I cannot accede except upon the clearest authority. None has been cited." Clute J. further said of s. 9 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1906, c. 145, that (at p. 329):
This section was passed not to admit what was not evidence, but for the purpose of contradiction. It does not provide that what was not otherwise evidence becomes evidence by the section, but simply that, before the party can be contradicted, the witness must, in the opinion of the Court, prove adverse. . . .
Riddell J. concurred, relying however on an edition of Wigmore on Evidence which predated the introduction of criticism of the orthodox rule in that work. Masten J. joined the majority, although only reluctantly since he doubted the ability of the jury member to follow the judge's limiting instructions (at p. 353):
Assume that he reaches the conclusion that the testimony now being given at the trial is false, and that the earlier statement is true. The duty of the juryman then is to disregard the evidence given by the witness at the trial, as being false testimony. But, having reached that conclusion, and having struck from his mind the testimony of the witness, he must then proceed to obliterate as well the statement given by the witness on the previous occasion, which he has just concluded a moment before to be true. Is that humanly possible?
In declining to follow the orthodox rule, Meredith C.J.C.P. (at p. 359) asserted that "[c]ases decided in the dark ages of the law of evidence, when, among other strange things, a party was not at liberty to discredit his own witness, cannot be very helpful for any purpose in these days, in this Province...." Meredith C.J.C.P. continued at p. 360:
And I hold that, if he [the trial judge] had told them [the jury] that, if from anything said by the witnesses at the trial and from their demeanour, they found that their statements on the former occasion were true, then such statements would be evidence at the trial, evidence from the witnesses' own lips, as the Judge put it, as well as from that other test of truthfulness, their demeanour.
This Court first adopted the orthodox rule in Deacon v. The King, [1947] S.C.R. 531, and, unlike the court in Duckworth, was unanimous on the point. However, both Kerwin J. and Rand J. exhibited a strong awareness of the arguments against the orthodox rule. Kerwin J. (for