R. v. Khan

R. v. Khan

Because defence raised a suggestion that Mr. Singh fabricated his account during the police interview after his November 2006 arrest, the Crown is permitted to re-examine Mr. Singh to adduce prior consistent statements only if those statements were made before his arrest in November 2006; such evidence is admissible solely to rebut the allegation of recent fabrication and not to prove the truth of the statements.

Citation
2013 BCSC 229
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Amjad Khan; Accused: Naim Saghir
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application Hearing (re Examination of Witness / Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements)
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Prior Consistent Statement, Recent Fabrication, Re Examination of Witness, Admissibility, Witness Credibility
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedural Law Prior Consistent Statement Recent Fabrication Re Examination of Witness Admissibility Witness Credibility

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

Parties

Regina

Crown

Amjad Khan

Accused

Naim Saghir

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application Hearing (re Examination of Witness / Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prior consistent statements are admissible to rebut a suggestion of recent fabrication
  2. 2 Whether prior consistent statements must be contemporaneous to the alleged event
  3. 3 Whether a prior statement made before an asserted motive to fabricate can be used solely to show lack of change in story

Ratio Decidendi

Because defence raised a suggestion that Mr. Singh fabricated his account during the police interview after his November 2006 arrest, the Crown is permitted to re-examine Mr. Singh to adduce prior consistent statements only if those statements were made before his arrest in November 2006; such evidence is admissible solely to rebut the allegation of recent fabrication and not to prove the truth of the statements.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Crown may re-examine Mr. Singh to elicit prior consistent statements provided those statements were made before his arrest in November 2006.
  • Any prior consistent statements admitted are limited to rebutting the allegation of recent fabrication and shall not be used to prove the truth of their contents or for other purposes.