Noticeboard
| Date | 01 January 2001 |
| Published date | 01 January 2001 |
| DOI | 10.1177/136571270100500105 |
| Subject Matter | Noticeboard |
OTICEB
OARD
Notices should be sent to Mike Redmayne, London School of Economics,
Houghton Street, London WC2 2AE. Email: M.RedmayneQlse.ac.uk
Canada-hearsay
The Canadian Supreme Court is well known for its bold approach to hearsay
evidence. Hearsay that does not fall into any of the recognised exceptions to
the hearsay rule may still be admissible if it satisfies the criteria of necessity
and reliability (see
R
v
Smith
(1992) 94
DLR
(4th) 590). In
R
v
Starr
(29
September
2000) a majority took this approach somewhat further. Shortly before his
death, the deceased had announced his intention to ‘go and do an Autopac
[car insurance] scam with Robert [Starr]’. The statement was
prima facie
admissible under the ‘state of mind’ exception to the hearsay rule, though
only as proof of the deceased’s, not Starr’s, intentions and likely actions.
Nevertheless, the majority held that the statement should still be analysed in
terms of its necessity and reliability. Given certain contextual factors
pointing to the unreliability of the statement, and the danger of the jury
drawing inferences about Starr’s actions from it, it was held that the
statement should not have been admitted. The decision makes traditional
exceptions to the hearsay rule less important. From now on, it seems, the
primary criteria of admissibility in all cases will be necessity and reliability.
Canada-confessions
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives rights
to
certain
standards of fair treatment during arrest and questioning. Breach of these
rights may lead to a confession being held inadmissible. In
R
v
Oickle
(29
September
2000)
the Supreme Court held that, in addition to the Charter
procedure, common law rules continue to apply to confession evidence. This
means that confessions must be voluntary; much of the decision is an
analysis of the concept of voluntariness. An interesting aspect of the case is
the significance of polygraph tests and deception. Although polygraph results
are inadmissible in Canadian courts, they are increasingly used in police
investigations. Dissenting, Arbour
J
held that Oickle’s confession should have
68
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVlDENCE
&
PROOF
To continue reading
Request your trial