« Interrogatoires principaux » : différence entre les versions

De Le carnet de droit pénal
← Modification précédente
VisuelWikicode
Aucun résumé des modifications
m Remplacement de texte : « ([0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]) SCC ([0-9]) » par « $1 CSC $2 »
Balises : Modification par mobile Modification par le web mobile
 
(5 versions intermédiaires par le même utilisateur non affichées)
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
{{en|Examinations-in-Chief}}
[[en:Examinations-in-Chief]]
{{fr|Interrogatoires_principaux}}
{{Currency2|janvier|2016}}
{{Currency2|January|2016}}
{{LevelOne}}{{HeaderTrials}}
{{LevelOne}}{{HeaderTrials}}
==General Principle==
==Principe général==
{{seealso|Examinations|Cross-Examinations}}
{{voir aussi|Interrogatoires|Contre-interrogatoires}}
An examination-in-chief or direct examination is where the party calling a witness to give evidence asks the witness questions to elicit evidence.
L'interrogatoire principal ou l'interrogatoire direct est une procédure dans laquelle la partie qui appelle un témoin à témoigner lui pose des questions pour obtenir des éléments de preuve.


==Rule Against Leading Questions==
==Règle contre les questions suggestives==
A leading question is a question that suggests the desired answer.<Ref>
Une question suggestive est une question qui suggère la réponse souhaitée.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Rose|1fbr4|2001 CanLII 24079|153 CCC (3d) 225}}{{perONCA|Charron JA}} (3:0){{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("A leading question is one that suggests the answer.")
{{CanLIIRP|Rose|1fbr4|2001 CanLII 24079|153 CCC (3d) 225}}{{perONCA|Charron JA}} (3:0){{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("A leading question is one that suggests the answer.")
</ref>
</ref>
In general, counsel cannot ask leading questions on of the witness that they call.<ref>
En général, l'avocat ne peut pas poser de questions suggestives au témoin qu'il cite.<ref>
{{ibid1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("It is trite law that the party who calls a witness is generally not permitted to ask the witness leading questions.")<br>
{{ibid1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("It is trite law that the party who calls a witness is generally not permitted to ask the witness leading questions.")<br>
cf. {{CanLIIRP|Bhardwaj|20bk4|2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII)|456 AR 313}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atL|20bk4|45}} suggests that it only goes to weight
cf. {{CanLIIRP|Bhardwaj|20bk4|2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII)|456 AR 313}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atL|20bk4|45}} suggests that it only goes to weight
Ligne 17 : Ligne 16 :
Leading questions are questions that clearly seek a particular answer (eg. "you saw the accused, didn't you?") or are questions that assume a foundation not in evidence (eg. "what happened after the accused stabbed him?").<ref>  
Leading questions are questions that clearly seek a particular answer (eg. "you saw the accused, didn't you?") or are questions that assume a foundation not in evidence (eg. "what happened after the accused stabbed him?").<ref>  
{{supra1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}}<br>
{{supra1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|W(EM)|flwbv|2011 SCC 31 (CanLII)|[2011] 2 SCR 542}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}} (6:1){{atL|flwbv|9}}<br>  
{{CanLIIRP|W(EM)|flwbv|2011 CSC 31 (CanLII)|[2011] 2 SCR 542}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}} (6:1){{atL|flwbv|9}}<br>  
''Nicolls v Kemp'' (1915), 171 E.R. 408 per Lord Ellenborough (“If questions are asked, to which the answer yes or no would be conclusive, they would certainly be objectionable.”)
''Nicolls v Kemp'' (1915), 171 E.R. 408 per Lord Ellenborough (“If questions are asked, to which the answer yes or no would be conclusive, they would certainly be objectionable.”)
</ref>  
</ref>  


; Rationale
; Justification
The reason for not allowing leading questions include:<ref>
Les raisons pour lesquelles les questions suggestives ne sont pas autorisées sont les suivantes :<ref>
{{supra1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("The reason for the rule arises from a concern that the witness, who in many instances favours the party who calls him or her, will readily agree to the suggestions put in the form of a question rather than give his or her own answers to the questions.")</ref>
{{supra1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("The reason for the rule arises from a concern that the witness, who in many instances favours the party who calls him or her, will readily agree to the suggestions put in the form of a question rather than give his or her own answers to the questions.")</ref>
*bias of the witness in favour of the calling party
*partialité du témoin en faveur de la partie qui appelle
*the danger that the calling party will only bring out helpful information without any balance that could come from the witnesses own version<ref>
*le danger que la partie qui appelle ne fournisse que des informations utiles sans aucun contrepoids qui pourrait provenir de la version du témoin lui-même<ref>
{{CanLIIRC-N|Maves v Grand Truck Railways| (1913) 5 WWR 212 (ABCA), 6 Alta LR 396}}</ref>
{{CanLIIRC-N|Maves v Grand Truck Railways| (1913) 5 WWR 212 (ABCA), 6 Alta LR 396}}</ref>
*the possibility that the witness will merely agree with everything put to the witness by the calling party.<ref>
*la possibilité que le témoin soit simplement d'accord avec tout ce qui lui est présenté par la partie qui l'a convoqué.<ref>
{{ibid1|Maves v Grant Truck Pacific Railway}}<br>  
{{ibid1|Maves v Grant Truck Pacific Railway}}<br>  
{{CanLIIRC-N|Connor v Brant| (1914) 31 OLR 274}}<br> Sopkina, Law of Evidence in Canada at ss.16.33<br>
{{CanLIIRC-N|Connor v Brant| (1914) 31 OLR 274}}<br> Sopkina, Law of Evidence in Canada at ss.16.33<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Clancey|, [1992] O.J.  No 3968 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)}}{{perONSC|Watt J}} (the witness “may be too disposed to assent to the proposition of counsel, rather than upon reflection or exertion of the witness’ own and true memory”)
{{CanLIIR-N|Clancey|, [1992] O.J.  No 3968 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)}}{{perONSC|Watt J}} (the witness “may be too disposed to assent to the proposition of counsel, rather than upon reflection or exertion of the witness’ own and true memory”)
</ref>
</ref>
* a witness who is nervous, not alert, confused or otherwise easily persuaded may accept the suggestion of a leading question without reflection.<ref>Maves</ref>
* un témoin nerveux, peu alerte, confus ou facilement persuadé peut accepter la suggestion d’une question suggestive sans réfléchir.<ref>Maves</ref>
The leading question may "impose the questioner’s will on the witness so as to elicit inaccurate information, absent an intention to do so on the part of the counsel or witness”<ref>MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition p. 18:10 </ref>
La question suggestive peut « imposer la volonté de l’interrogateur au témoin de manière à obtenir des informations inexactes, en l’absence d’une intention de le faire de la part de l’avocat ou du témoin »<ref>MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition p. 18:10 </ref>


The importance of not leading depends on the circumstances. The rule should be flexible at the least for the sake of expediency.<ref>
L'importance de ne pas diriger dépend des circonstances. La règle doit être souple, au moins pour des raisons de commodité.<ref>
{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ("Of course, the degree of concern that may arise from the use of leading questions will depend on the particular circumstances and the rule is applied with some flexibility. For example, leading questions are routinely asked to elicit a witness' evidence on preliminary and non-contentious matters. This practice is adopted for the sake of expediency and generally gives rise to no concern. ... ")</ref>
{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ("Of course, the degree of concern that may arise from the use of leading questions will depend on the particular circumstances and the rule is applied with some flexibility. For example, leading questions are routinely asked to elicit a witness' evidence on preliminary and non-contentious matters. This practice is adopted for the sake of expediency and generally gives rise to no concern. ... ")</ref>


; Discretion in the "Interests of Justice"
; Pouvoir discrétionnaire dans l'« intérêt de la justice »
A judge has discretion to allow any leading question where it is "necessary in the interests of justice."<ref>
Un juge a le pouvoir discrétionnaire d'autoriser toute question suggestive lorsque cela est « nécessaire dans l'intérêt de la justice ».<ref>
{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ("...the trial judge has a general discretion to allow leading questions whenever it is considered necessary in the interests of justice...")
{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ("...the trial judge has a general discretion to allow leading questions whenever it is considered necessary in the interests of justice...")
</ref>
</ref>


; Exception
; Exception
It is usually permissible to lead on a number of issues:  
Il est généralement permis de prendre la parole sur un certain nombre de questions :
* introductory or non-controversial matters such as name, address, position, etc.<ref>
* des questions introductives ou non controversées telles que le nom, l'adresse, le poste, etc.<ref>
{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ("Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.")
{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ("Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.")
{{supra1|Maves v Grand Truck Railways(ABCA)}}, at 219 <br>
{{supra1|Maves v Grand Truck Railways(ABCA)}}, at 219 <br>
Ligne 52 : Ligne 51 :
Cross on Evidence 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths 1967) p. 189<br>
Cross on Evidence 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths 1967) p. 189<br>
{{supra1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}}</ref>
{{supra1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}}</ref>
* for the purpose of identifying persons or things<ref>Delisle, "Evidence: Principles and Problems" (7th Ed.){{atp|414}}, states at common law</ref>
* dans le but d'identifier des personnes ou des choses<ref>Delisle, "Evidence: Principles and Problems" (7th Ed.){{atp|414}}, États de common law</ref>
* where "necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry."<ref>
* lorsque « il est nécessaire d'orienter le témoin vers une question ou un domaine d'enquête particulier ».<ref>
{{ibid1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.")<br>
{{ibid1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.")<br>
{{supra1|Muise}}{{atL|fzhtg|23}}<br>
{{supra1|Muise}}{{atL|fzhtg|23}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
* to allow one witness to contradict another regarding statements made by that other<ref>
* de permettre à un témoin de contredire un autre témoin au sujet de déclarations faites par ce dernier<ref>
{{supra1|Delisle}}</ref>
{{supra1|Delisle}}</ref>
* where the witness is declared hostile;
* lorsque le témoin est déclaré hostile ;
* where the witness is defective based on age, education, language, mental capacity<ref>
* lorsque le témoin est déficient en raison de son âge, de son éducation, de sa langue, de ses capacités mentales<ref>
{{supra1|Delisle}}</ref>
{{supra1|Delisle}}</ref>
* where it is a complicated matter, at the judge's discretion<ref>
* lorsqu'il s'agit d'une affaire compliquée, à la discrétion du juge<ref>
{{supra1|Delisle}}.</ref>
{{supra1|Delisle}}.</ref>


A judge has discretion to allow leading where it is in the interest of justice.<ref>Reference Re {{CanLIIRP|Coffin|22tqn|1956 CanLII 94 (SCC)|[1956] SCR 191}}{{Plurality}}, p. 22 <br>
Un juge a le pouvoir discrétionnaire d'autoriser une inférence lorsque cela est dans l'intérêt de la justice.
<ref>Reference Re {{CanLIIRP|Coffin|22tqn|1956 CanLII 94 (SCC)|[1956] SCR 191}}{{Plurality}}, p. 22 <br>
{{supra1|Muise}}{{atL|fzhtg|23}}<br>
{{supra1|Muise}}{{atL|fzhtg|23}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


; Consequence of Leading Questions
; Conséquence des questions suggestives
The answer to a leading question is not necessaries inadmissible but will carry very little or less weight, especially on critical issues.<ref>
La réponse à une question suggestive n'est pas nécessairement irrecevable, mais elle aura très peu ou pas de poids, en particulier sur des questions critiques.<ref>
{{UKCase|Moor v Moor| [1954] 2 All ER 458 (CA)}}<br>
{{UKCase|Moor v Moor| [1954] 2 All ER 458 (CA)}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Williams|, 66 CCC (2d) 234 (Ont. C.A.)}} see p. 236 (“It is clear, however, that an answer elicited by a leading question is entitled to little, if any, weight.”)<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Williams|, 66 CCC (2d) 234 (Ont. C.A.)}} see p. 236 (“It is clear, however, that an answer elicited by a leading question is entitled to little, if any, weight.”)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Nicholson|5skh|1998 ABCA 290 (CanLII)|129 CCC (3d) 198}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Nicholson|5skh|1998 ABCA 290 (CanLII)|129 CCC (3d) 198}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bhardwaj|20bk4|2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII)|456 AR 313}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atL|20bk4|45}}("...the answers to leading questions are admissible, although the trier‑of‑fact may give less weight to a witness’s answer elicited by a leading question. ... There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked. The examiner in asking a leading question runs the risk that the answer will be given less weight than if elicited in a non‑leading manner. ")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bhardwaj|20bk4|2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII)|456 AR 313}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atL|20bk4|45}}("...the answers to leading questions are admissible, although the trier‑of‑fact may give less weight to a witness’s answer elicited by a leading question. ... There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked. The examiner in asking a leading question runs the risk that the answer will be given less weight than if elicited in a non‑leading manner. ")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Gordon-Brietzke|fsfcr|2012 ABPC 221 (CanLII)|547 AR 260}}{{perABPC|Allen J}}{{atsL|fsfcr|41| to 57}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Gordon-Brietzke|fsfcr|2012 ABPC 221 (CanLII)|547 AR 260}}{{perABPC|Allen J}}{{atsL|fsfcr|41| à 57}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Parkes|, [2005] OJ No 937}}{{at-|44}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Parkes|, [2005] OJ No 937}}{{at-|44}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Cawthorne|ghgkg|2015 CMAC 1 (CanLII)|7 CMAR 993}}, ''per'' Zinn JA{{atL|ghgkg|62}} ("Evidence obtained by a leading question is not inadmissible; rather, it is up to the trier of fact to consider whether the weight of the answer is negatively affected by the way in which it was produced")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Cawthorne|ghgkg|2015 CMAC 1 (CanLII)|7 CMAR 993}}, ''per'' Zinn JA{{atL|ghgkg|62}} ("Evidence obtained by a leading question is not inadmissible; rather, it is up to the trier of fact to consider whether the weight of the answer is negatively affected by the way in which it was produced")<br>
Ligne 81 : Ligne 81 :
</ref>
</ref>


The weight given to an answer from a leading question will depend on "how leading the question was, the subject matter and other evidence before the Court."
Le poids accordé à une réponse à une question suggestive dépendra du « caractère suggestif de la question, du sujet et des autres éléments de preuve présentés à la Cour ».
<ref>
<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bhardwaj|20bk4|2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII)|456 AR 313 (Alta. Q.B.)}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atL|20bk4|45}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bhardwaj|20bk4|2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII)|456 AR 313 (Alta. Q.B.)}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atL|20bk4|45}}<br>
MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition{{atps|18 - 16}}<br>
MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition{{atps|18 - 16}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
It will often be that the inappropriateness of the question, and so the weight given to the answer, will be assessed in the light of whole circumstances of the case, after subsequent testimony of the witness.<ref>
Il arrive souvent que le caractère inapproprié de la question, et donc le poids accordé à la réponse, soient évalués à la lumière de l'ensemble des circonstances de l'affaire, après le témoignage ultérieur du témoin.<ref>
MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition{{atps|18 - 16}} (“The weight ... given ... is thus best assessed in light of the circumstances of the case. ...subsequent testimony from the witness, whether in chief or cross-examination, may make clear that the leading question had no improper impact on the answer elicited.”)</ref>
MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition{{atps|18 - 16}} (“The weight ... given ... is thus best assessed in light of the circumstances of the case. ...subsequent testimony from the witness, whether in chief or cross-examination, may make clear that the leading question had no improper impact on the answer elicited.”)</ref>


; Objections
; Objections
Objections should not be made to leading questions unless the question is "critical" to the case.<ref>
Les questions suggestives ne doivent pas être contestées, à moins que la question ne soit « cruciale » pour l'affaire.<ref>
FJ. Wrottesley, Examination of Witnesses in Court, 3rd Ed.{{atp|42}}<br>
FJ. Wrottesley, Examination of Witnesses in Court, 3rd Ed.{{atp|42}}<br>
Cox, "Criminal Evidence Handbook", 2nd Ed{{atp|114}}<br>
Cox, "Criminal Evidence Handbook", 2nd Ed{{atp|114}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


The use of leading questions will be tolerated more when for the purpose of a "controlled examination" rather than where is becomes a "cross‑examination for the purpose of discrediting or contradicting" the witness.<ref>
L'utilisation de questions suggestives sera davantage tolérée lorsqu'elle aura pour but un « interrogatoire contrôlé » plutôt que lorsqu'il s'agira d'un « contre-interrogatoire visant à discréditer ou à contredire » le témoin.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Muise|fzhtg|2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}} (3:0){{atL|fzhtg|27}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Muise|fzhtg|2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}} (3:0){{atL|fzhtg|27}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Situ|1lgqh|2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII)|200 CCC (3d) 9}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0){{atL|1lgqh|12}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Situ|1lgqh|2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII)|200 CCC (3d) 9}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0){{atL|1lgqh|12}}<br>

Dernière version du 14 septembre 2024 à 10:34

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois janvier 2016. (Rev. # 19679)

Principe général

Voir également: Interrogatoires et Contre-interrogatoires

L'interrogatoire principal ou l'interrogatoire direct est une procédure dans laquelle la partie qui appelle un témoin à témoigner lui pose des questions pour obtenir des éléments de preuve.

Règle contre les questions suggestives

Une question suggestive est une question qui suggère la réponse souhaitée.[1] En général, l'avocat ne peut pas poser de questions suggestives au témoin qu'il cite.[2] Leading questions are questions that clearly seek a particular answer (eg. "you saw the accused, didn't you?") or are questions that assume a foundation not in evidence (eg. "what happened after the accused stabbed him?").[3]

Justification

Les raisons pour lesquelles les questions suggestives ne sont pas autorisées sont les suivantes :[4]

  • partialité du témoin en faveur de la partie qui appelle
  • le danger que la partie qui appelle ne fournisse que des informations utiles sans aucun contrepoids qui pourrait provenir de la version du témoin lui-même[5]
  • la possibilité que le témoin soit simplement d'accord avec tout ce qui lui est présenté par la partie qui l'a convoqué.[6]
  • un témoin nerveux, peu alerte, confus ou facilement persuadé peut accepter la suggestion d’une question suggestive sans réfléchir.[7]

La question suggestive peut « imposer la volonté de l’interrogateur au témoin de manière à obtenir des informations inexactes, en l’absence d’une intention de le faire de la part de l’avocat ou du témoin »[8]

L'importance de ne pas diriger dépend des circonstances. La règle doit être souple, au moins pour des raisons de commodité.[9]

Pouvoir discrétionnaire dans l'« intérêt de la justice »

Un juge a le pouvoir discrétionnaire d'autoriser toute question suggestive lorsque cela est « nécessaire dans l'intérêt de la justice ».[10]

Exception

Il est généralement permis de prendre la parole sur un certain nombre de questions :

  • des questions introductives ou non controversées telles que le nom, l'adresse, le poste, etc.[11]
  • dans le but d'identifier des personnes ou des choses[12]
  • lorsque « il est nécessaire d'orienter le témoin vers une question ou un domaine d'enquête particulier ».[13]
  • de permettre à un témoin de contredire un autre témoin au sujet de déclarations faites par ce dernier[14]
  • lorsque le témoin est déclaré hostile ;
  • lorsque le témoin est déficient en raison de son âge, de son éducation, de sa langue, de ses capacités mentales[15]
  • lorsqu'il s'agit d'une affaire compliquée, à la discrétion du juge[16]

Un juge a le pouvoir discrétionnaire d'autoriser une inférence lorsque cela est dans l'intérêt de la justice. [17]

Conséquence des questions suggestives

La réponse à une question suggestive n'est pas nécessairement irrecevable, mais elle aura très peu ou pas de poids, en particulier sur des questions critiques.[18]

Le poids accordé à une réponse à une question suggestive dépendra du « caractère suggestif de la question, du sujet et des autres éléments de preuve présentés à la Cour ». [19] Il arrive souvent que le caractère inapproprié de la question, et donc le poids accordé à la réponse, soient évalués à la lumière de l'ensemble des circonstances de l'affaire, après le témoignage ultérieur du témoin.[20]

Objections

Les questions suggestives ne doivent pas être contestées, à moins que la question ne soit « cruciale » pour l'affaire.[21]

L'utilisation de questions suggestives sera davantage tolérée lorsqu'elle aura pour but un « interrogatoire contrôlé » plutôt que lorsqu'il s'agira d'un « contre-interrogatoire visant à discréditer ou à contredire » le témoin.[22]

  1. ↑ R c Rose, 2001 CanLII 24079, 153 CCC (3d) 225, par Charron JA (3:0), au para 9 ("A leading question is one that suggests the answer.")
  2. ↑ , ibid., au para 9 ("It is trite law that the party who calls a witness is generally not permitted to ask the witness leading questions.")
    cf. R c Bhardwaj, 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), 456 AR 313, per Lee J, au para 45 suggests that it only goes to weight ( "There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked.”)
  3. ↑ Rose, supra, au para 9
    R c W(EM), 2011 CSC 31 (CanLII), [2011] 2 SCR 542, par McLachlin CJ (6:1), au para 9
    Nicolls v Kemp (1915), 171 E.R. 408 per Lord Ellenborough (“If questions are asked, to which the answer yes or no would be conclusive, they would certainly be objectionable.”)
  4. ↑ Rose, supra, au para 9 ("The reason for the rule arises from a concern that the witness, who in many instances favours the party who calls him or her, will readily agree to the suggestions put in the form of a question rather than give his or her own answers to the questions.")
  5. ↑ Maves v Grand Truck Railways (1913) 5 WWR 212 (ABCA), 6 Alta LR 396(*pas de liens CanLII)
  6. ↑ , ibid.
    Connor v Brant (1914) 31 OLR 274(*pas de liens CanLII)
    Sopkina, Law of Evidence in Canada at ss.16.33
    R c Clancey, [1992] O.J. No 3968 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)(*pas de liens CanLII) , par Watt J (the witness “may be too disposed to assent to the proposition of counsel, rather than upon reflection or exertion of the witness’ own and true memory”)
  7. ↑ Maves
  8. ↑ MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition p. 18:10
  9. ↑ Rose, supra, au para 9 ("Of course, the degree of concern that may arise from the use of leading questions will depend on the particular circumstances and the rule is applied with some flexibility. For example, leading questions are routinely asked to elicit a witness' evidence on preliminary and non-contentious matters. This practice is adopted for the sake of expediency and generally gives rise to no concern. ... ")
  10. ↑ Rose, supra, au para 9 ("...the trial judge has a general discretion to allow leading questions whenever it is considered necessary in the interests of justice...")
  11. ↑ Rose, supra, au para 9 ("Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.") Maves v Grand Truck Railways(ABCA), supra, at 219
    R c Muise, 2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII), per Hamilton JA, au para 23
    R c Situ, 2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII), 200 CCC (3d) 9, par curiam (3:0), au para 9
    Cross on Evidence 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths 1967) p. 189
    Rose, supra, au para 9
  12. ↑ Delisle, "Evidence: Principles and Problems" (7th Ed.), au p. 414, États de common law
  13. ↑ , ibid., au para 9 ("Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.")
    Muise, supra, au para 23
  14. ↑ Delisle, supra
  15. ↑ Delisle, supra
  16. ↑ Delisle, supra.
  17. ↑ Reference Re R c Coffin, 1956 CanLII 94 (SCC), [1956] SCR 191, p. 22
    Muise, supra, au para 23
  18. ↑ Moor v Moor [1954] 2 All ER 458 (CA) (UK)
    R c Williams, 66 CCC (2d) 234 (Ont. C.A.)(*pas de liens CanLII) see p. 236 (“It is clear, however, that an answer elicited by a leading question is entitled to little, if any, weight.”)
    R c Nicholson, 1998 ABCA 290 (CanLII), 129 CCC (3d) 198, par curiam (3:0)
    R c Bhardwaj, 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), 456 AR 313, per Lee J, au para 45("...the answers to leading questions are admissible, although the trier‑of‑fact may give less weight to a witness’s answer elicited by a leading question. ... There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked. The examiner in asking a leading question runs the risk that the answer will be given less weight than if elicited in a non‑leading manner. ")
    R c Gordon-Brietzke, 2012 ABPC 221 (CanLII), 547 AR 260, par Allen J, aux paras 41 à 57
    R c Parkes, [2005] OJ No 937(*pas de liens CanLII) , au para 44
    R c Cawthorne, 2015 CMAC 1 (CanLII), 7 CMAR 993, per Zinn JA, au para 62 ("Evidence obtained by a leading question is not inadmissible; rather, it is up to the trier of fact to consider whether the weight of the answer is negatively affected by the way in which it was produced")
    S. Casey Hill, David M. Tanovich & Louis P. Strezos, McWilliams’ Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2013) (loose-leaf revision 2013-4), at 21-8 to 21-16
  19. ↑ R c Bhardwaj, 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), 456 AR 313 (Alta. Q.B.), per Lee J, au para 45
    MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition, aux pp. 18 - 16
  20. ↑ MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition, aux pp. 18 - 16 (“The weight ... given ... is thus best assessed in light of the circumstances of the case. ...subsequent testimony from the witness, whether in chief or cross-examination, may make clear that the leading question had no improper impact on the answer elicited.”)
  21. ↑ FJ. Wrottesley, Examination of Witnesses in Court, 3rd Ed., au p. 42
    Cox, "Criminal Evidence Handbook", 2nd Ed, au p. 114
  22. ↑ R c Muise, 2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII), per Hamilton JA (3:0), au para 27
    R c Situ, 2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII), 200 CCC (3d) 9, par curiam (3:0), au para 12
Récupérée de « https://carnetdroitpenal.ca/fr/index.php?title=Interrogatoires_principaux&oldid=19679 »