R. v. D.M.D.

R. v. D.M.D.

The court admitted the video-recorded statement of 12 January 2017 under s.715.1 because, on the balance of probabilities, it was made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence and its admission would not interfere with the proper administration of justice; flaws in an earlier January 4 interview did not render the subsequent interview tainted and issues identified (audio/video quality, non-verbal responses, prior family discussions, use of aids) go to weight and credibility at trial rather than to admissibility.

Citation
2019 BCSC 1027
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: D.M.D.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal (sexual Offence, S.151 Criminal Code) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Video Recorded Statement Under S.715.1
Outcome
Video-recorded statement of complainant EJM dated 12 January 2017 admitted under s.715.1 of the Criminal Code.
Legal Topics
Section 715.1 Criminal Code, Video Recorded Statements, Admissibility, Proper Administration of Justice, Reasonable Time, Reliability and Weight of Evidence, Use of Aids in Interviews
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Child Witness Protection Hearsay Law Section 715.1 Criminal Code Video Recorded Statements Admissibility Proper Administration of Justice +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

D.M.D.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (sexual Offence, S.151 Criminal Code) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Video Recorded Statement Under S.715.1

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the video-recorded statement dated 12 January 2017 was made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence for the purposes of s.715.1
  2. 2 Whether admission of that video-recorded statement would interfere with the proper administration of justice under s.715.1
  3. 3 Whether auxiliary materials used in the interview (rules, diagram, handwritten notes) are admissible and on what basis

Ratio Decidendi

The court admitted the video-recorded statement of 12 January 2017 under s.715.1 because, on the balance of probabilities, it was made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence and its admission would not interfere with the proper administration of justice; flaws in an earlier January 4 interview did not render the subsequent interview tainted and issues identified (audio/video quality, non-verbal responses, prior family discussions, use of aids) go to weight and credibility at trial rather than to admissibility.

Court Disposition

Video-recorded statement of complainant EJM dated 12 January 2017 admitted under s.715.1 of the Criminal Code.

Orders

  • The 12 January 2017 video-recorded statement is admissible at trial under s.715.1.
  • The diagram labels filled in during the interview and EJM's handwritten notes adopted on camera are admissible to the extent they record EJM's own words and were adopted by her.