R. v. Khan

R. v. Khan

The evidence of Mr. Saran and Detective Bentley, described in general terms and limited to the fact and timing of the prior report and the addresses identified, is admissible under the narrative exception to assist the trier of fact in assessing credibility and the timeline; the evidence must not be used for the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 BCSC 220
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Amjad Khan; Accused: Naim Saghir
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements
Outcome
Voir dire allowed; Crown evidence admissible under the narrative exception in limited general terms
Legal Topics
Prior Consistent Statements, Narrative Exception, Credibility, Vetrovec Warning, Admissibility
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Law Prior Consistent Statements Narrative Exception Credibility Vetrovec Warning Admissibility

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Amjad Khan

Accused

Naim Saghir

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prior consistent statements by witness are admissible under the narrative exception
  2. 2 Whether Detective Bentley's testimony is sufficiently independent to be confirmatory on the timeline
  3. 3 Whether identifying the accused in prior statements is permissible as part of the narrative

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of Mr. Saran and Detective Bentley, described in general terms and limited to the fact and timing of the prior report and the addresses identified, is admissible under the narrative exception to assist the trier of fact in assessing credibility and the timeline; the evidence must not be used for the truth of its contents or as self-corroboration.

Court Disposition

Voir dire allowed; Crown evidence admissible under the narrative exception in limited general terms

Orders

  • Ban on publication pursuant to s. 517(1) and s. 539(1) of the Criminal Code
  • Crown evidence admitted in general terms limited to fact and timing of prior complaint and addresses; such evidence shall not be used for the truth of its contents or as self-corroboration