R. v. W.H.A.

R. v. W.H.A.

The judge held that selected recent non-violent convictions on the accused's record (items 1–4 listed in para.13: Jan 20, 2009; Sep 12, 2006; Apr 27, 2006; Jan 18, 2006) are admissible under s.12 as probative of credibility in the credibility contest with the complainant, while older convictions are too remote or would unfairly paint the accused as a habitual offender and are excluded; the Crown is not permitted to question about sentence or circumstances of those convictions and the ruling may be revisited if circumstances change.

Citation
2011 NSSC 173
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: W. H. A.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault / Voir Dire During Trial After Crown Closed Its Case (defence Case Pending)
Outcome
Partial allowance: Crown permitted to cross-examine accused on specified recent convictions (items 1–4 of the criminal record); remaining older convictions excluded.
Legal Topics
Impeachment by Prior Convictions, Section 12 Canada Evidence Act, Probative Vs Prejudicial Balancing, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Evidence Criminal Law Forensic Evidence Impeachment by Prior Convictions Section 12 Canada Evidence Act Probative Vs Prejudicial Balancing Credibility Assessment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

W. H. A.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Voir Dire During Trial After Crown Closed Its Case (defence Case Pending)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's prior convictions are admissible under s.12 of the Canada Evidence Act for impeachment of credibility
  2. 2 Whether the probative value of prior convictions is outweighed by prejudicial effect on fair trial rights
  3. 3 What scope of inquiry into prior convictions is permissible (which convictions, remoteness, and limits on sentence/circumstances)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge held that selected recent non-violent convictions on the accused's record (items 1–4 listed in para.13: Jan 20, 2009; Sep 12, 2006; Apr 27, 2006; Jan 18, 2006) are admissible under s.12 as probative of credibility in the credibility contest with the complainant, while older convictions are too remote or would unfairly paint the accused as a habitual offender and are excluded; the Crown is not permitted to question about sentence or circumstances of those convictions and the ruling may be revisited if circumstances change.

Court Disposition

Partial allowance: Crown permitted to cross-examine accused on specified recent convictions (items 1–4 of the criminal record); remaining older convictions excluded.

Orders

  • Crown may question the accused regarding his convictions dated Jan 20, 2009; Sep 12, 2006; Apr 27, 2006; Jan 18, 2006 for the purpose of testing credibility
  • Crown is prohibited from extending examination to the sentence or circumstances of those convictions