R. v. Hamer

R. v. Hamer

The Crown failed to establish the necessary evidential basis that testimony behind a screen was necessary to obtain a full and candid account: the witness had previously given full evidence at the preliminary inquiry (aside from a single break), the counsellor's opinion evidence was inadmissible in the form presented, and the risk of jury prejudice from departure from in‑person testimony militated against ordering a screen; accordingly the s.486.2(2) application was denied though the court directed the sheriffs to keep a screen available if circumstances change.

Citation
2016 BCSC 1040
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Michael Louis Hamer
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Indictment / Voir Dire Under S.486.2(2) Prior to Jury Trial
Outcome
Application under s.486.2(2) to have witness testify behind a screen denied
Legal Topics
Section 486.2(2) Criminal Code, Screening Witnesses, Necessity Standard to Obtain a Full and Candid Account, Prejudice to Accused, Admissibility of Lay Opinion Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Court Procedure Victim Testimony Protections Jury Trial Procedure Section 486.2(2) Criminal Code Screening Witnesses Necessity Standard to Obtain a Full and Candid Account +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Michael Louis Hamer

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Indictment / Voir Dire Under S.486.2(2) Prior to Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a witness should be permitted to testify behind a screen under s.486.2(2) Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the Crown has established the evidential basis that the order is necessary to obtain a full and candid account
  3. 3 Admissibility of counsellor's opinion evidence without expert qualification or cross‑examination

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to establish the necessary evidential basis that testimony behind a screen was necessary to obtain a full and candid account: the witness had previously given full evidence at the preliminary inquiry (aside from a single break), the counsellor's opinion evidence was inadmissible in the form presented, and the risk of jury prejudice from departure from in‑person testimony militated against ordering a screen; accordingly the s.486.2(2) application was denied though the court directed the sheriffs to keep a screen available if circumstances change.

Court Disposition

Application under s.486.2(2) to have witness testify behind a screen denied

Orders

  • Application under s.486.2(2) denied
  • Opinion portion of counsellor's affidavit (para.10) excluded from consideration as presented