Generally speaking reliability for purposes of the principled exception to the hearsay rule has been met by an oath. That is the concept behind the KGB Statement.
In a surprising reversal the Court of Appeal has held, at least where error is in play, an oath is not helpful. This point may be relevant in many criminal cases.
Clayson-Martin v. Martin, 2015 ONCA 596:
[35] That Ms. Brydson's evidence was under oath does not speak to her reliability. It speaks only to her veracity and credibility as a witness. Since the concern here is not that Ms. Brydson may have been lying but rather that she may have been mistaken, the oath does not assist.
In a surprising reversal the Court of Appeal has held, at least where error is in play, an oath is not helpful. This point may be relevant in many criminal cases.
Clayson-Martin v. Martin, 2015 ONCA 596:
[35] That Ms. Brydson's evidence was under oath does not speak to her reliability. It speaks only to her veracity and credibility as a witness. Since the concern here is not that Ms. Brydson may have been lying but rather that she may have been mistaken, the oath does not assist.
1 comment:
Makes perfect sense to me. Reliability is not increased by
either an oath or the fact that one is a "complainant" in
a sexual assault or harassment case. It is indeed a very, very
dangerous practice to buy into this tainted logic.
Post a Comment