Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 NOVEMBER 2012

R v. Nedelcu, 2012 SCC 59 - When Civil & Criminal Worlds Collide

At the trial level, the Crown used prior inconsistent examination for discovery evidence from the accused's civil suit at his criminal trial to impeach/test his credibility.

CanadaInternational Law

At the trial level, the Crown used prior inconsistent examination for discovery evidence from the accused's civil suit at his criminal trial to impeach/test his credibility.

The accused could not remember anything about the accident at his examination for discovery, but then testified at the criminal trial that he remembered pretty much everything.  

The accused was found to be unreliable regarding the inconsistent evidence he gave at the criminal trial and he was convicted.  

The accused argued that the Crown's use of his examination for discovery evidence violated s. 13 of the charter of rights and freedoms protection against self-incrimination.  

The Supreme Court of Canada found that the inconsistent examination for discovery evidence was non-incriminating evidence, and therefore could be used to impeach/test his credibility. This use did not violate s. 13 of the Charter.  

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from