Friday, November 20, 2015

Reliability not ensured by oath

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.

1 comment:

E. J. Guiste said...

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.