« Contre-interrogatoires » : différence entre les versions

← Modification précédente Modification suivante →

@@ Ligne 1 : / Ligne 1 : @@
 {{en|Cross-Examinations}}
-{{fr|Contre-interrogatoires}}
 {{Currency2|August|2021}}
 {{LevelZero}}{{HeaderTrials}}
 ==Principes généraux==
-{{seealso|Examinations|Examinations-in-Chief}}
+{{seealso|Examinations|Examens principaux}}
-The cross-examination is a "cornerstone of the adversarial trial process"<ref>
+Le contre-interrogatoire est une « pierre angulaire du processus contradictoire du procès »<ref>{{CanLIIRP|Hart|1x68t|1999 NSCA 45 (CanLII)|135 CCC (3d) 377}}{{perNSCA|Cromwell JA}}{{atL|1x68t|8}} ("The right to cross-examine is a cornerstone of the adversarial trial process.  It is an important vehicle for the discovery of truth and is central to our understanding of fair procedure.  However, even the most important rights have limits. As the Charter of Rights and Freedoms makes clear, our constitutionally guaranteed rights are fundamental, but they are not absolute.")<br>
-{{CanLIIRP|Hart|1x68t|1999 NSCA 45 (CanLII)|135 CCC (3d) 377}}{{perNSCA|Cromwell JA}}{{atL|1x68t|8}} ("The right to cross-examine is a cornerstone of the adversarial trial process.  It is an important vehicle for the discovery of truth and is central to our understanding of fair procedure.  However, even the most important rights have limits. As the Charter of Rights and Freedoms makes clear, our constitutionally guaranteed rights are fundamental, but they are not absolute.")<br>
 {{CanLIIRP|Pires; Lising|1m021|2005 SCC 66 (CanLII)|[2005] 3 SCR 343}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atL|1m021|3}} (it is "of fundamental significance to the criminal trial process")<br></ref>, it is "a fundamental feature of a fair trial"<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Esau|22rv9|2009 SKCA 31 (CanLII)|324 Sask R 95}}{{perSKCA|Cameron JA}}{{atL|22rv9|17}}</ref>, and is the "ultimate means of demonstrating truth and testing veracity."<ref>
@@ Ligne 14 : / Ligne 12 : @@
 {{CanLIIR-N|Wallick| (1990), 69 Man. R. (2d) 310 (CA)}} ("Cross-examination is a most powerful weapon of the defence, particularly when the entire case turns on credibility of the witnesses. An accused in a criminal case has the right of cross-examination in the fullest and widest sense of the word as long as he does not abuse that right.  Any improper interference with the right is an error which will result in the conviction being quashed.") - cited with approval in {{supra1|Osolin}}
 </ref>
-However, while the right to cross-examination is broad, counsel are generally bound by the rules of relevancy and materiality.<ref>
+Cependant, même si le droit au contre-interrogatoire est large, les avocats sont généralement liés par les règles de pertinence et de matérialité.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Mitchell|21gdd|2008 ONCA 757 (CanLII)|80 WCB (2d) 796}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atsL|21gdd|17| to 19}}</ref>
-A witness may be cross-examined on any matter that may "impair his credibility."<ref>
+Un témoin peut être contre-interrogé sur toute question susceptible de « porter atteinte à sa crédibilité ».<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|JB|j1dqp|2019 ONCA 591 (CanLII)|378 CCC (3d) 302}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|j1dqp|29}} ("To begin, like any witness who testifies, an accused may be cross-examined on matters that may impair his credibility:...")<br>
 {{CanLIIRP|Davison, DeRosie and MacArthur|g15kj|1974 CanLII 787 (ON CA)|20 CCC (2d) 424}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}} at p. 441, leave to appeal refused, [1974] SCR viii<br>
 </ref>
-; Purpose of Cross-Examination
+; Objectif du contre-interrogatoire
-It is generally understood that the purpose of cross-examination is to elicit evidence regarding:<ref>
+Il est généralement entendu que le but du contre-interrogatoire est d'obtenir des preuves concernant :<ref>{{CanLIIRP|OGK|2325s|1994 CanLII 8742 (BC CA)|28 CR (4th) 129}}{{perBCCA|Taylor JA}}{{atL|2325s|14}}<br>
-{{CanLIIRP|OGK|2325s|1994 CanLII 8742 (BC CA)|28 CR (4th) 129}}{{perBCCA|Taylor JA}}{{atL|2325s|14}}<br>
 </ref>
-# the credibility of the witness;
+# la crédibilité du témoin ;
-# the facts to which he has deposed in chief, including the cross-examiner's version of them; and
+# les faits sur lesquels il a déposé l'essentiel, y compris la version de ceux-ci par le contre-interrogateur ; et
-# the facts to which the witness has not deposed but to which the cross-examiner thinks he is able to depose.
+# les faits sur lesquels le témoin n'a pas déposé mais sur lesquels le contre-interrogateur pense pouvoir se prononcer.
-Cross-examination intends to "explore the evidence of the witness, exposing weaknesses, biases, and inaccuracies, and thereby assist in the truth finding process."<ref>
+Le contre-interrogatoire vise à « explorer le témoignage du témoin, en révélant ses faiblesses, ses préjugés et ses inexactitudes, et ainsi contribuer au processus de recherche de la vérité. »<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Sylvain|g6pw2|2014 ABCA 153 (CanLII)|310 CCC (3d) 1}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (2:1){{atL|g6pw2|95}}<br>
 </ref>
-; Appellate Review
+; Révision en appel
-The admission of inadmissible evidence through improper cross-examination questions is a question of law and reviewable on a standard of correctness.<ref>
+L'admission d'éléments de preuve irrecevables au moyen de questions de contre-interrogatoire inappropriées est une question de droit et peut être révisée selon la norme de la décision correcte.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Mian|ft8h1|2012 ABCA 302 (CanLII)|292 CCC (3d) 346}}{{TheCourtABCA}}
 </ref>
-A court reviewing a cross-examination must be able to distinguish between those questions that are merely improper from those that compromise trial fairness.<ref>
+Un tribunal examinant un contre-interrogatoire doit être capable de faire la distinction entre les questions qui sont simplement inappropriées et celles qui compromettent l'équité du procès.<ref>
 {{CanLIIR-N|AG|2015 ABCA 159}}{{at-|22}}<br>
 </ref>
 {{reflist|2}}
-===Scope of Cross Examination===
+===Portée du contre-interrogatoire===
-The scope of questioning can be broad. It is recognized as "being protected by ss. 7 and 11(d)" of the Charter.<ref>
+La portée du questionnement peut être large. Il est reconnu comme « étant protégé par les articles 7 et 11(d) » de la Charte.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Lyttle|1gd50|2004 SCC 5 (CanLII)|[2004] 1 SCR 193}}{{perSCC-H|Major and Fish JJ}} (7:0){{atL|1gd50|43}} <br>
 {{CanLIIRP|Osolin|1frvz|1993 CanLII 54 (SCC)|[1993] 4 SCR 595}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atps|663-65}} [SCR] ("Thus it can be seen that the right to cross-examine has always been held to be of fundamental importance in a criminal trial. That right is now protected by ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.")<br>
 </ref>
-This right is especially important in cases that turn on credibility.<ref>
+Ce droit est particulièrement important dans les affaires qui mettent en jeu la crédibilité.<ref>
 {{CanLIIR-N|Anandmalik|, (1984), 6 OAC 143 (CA)}}<br>
 {{CanLIIR-N|Giffin|, [1988] AJ No 312}} <br>
@@ Ligne 56 : / Ligne 53 : @@
 </ref>
-The right however is limited by the requirements of relevancy and materiality,<ref>
+Ce droit est cependant limité par les exigences de pertinence et de matérialité,<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Mitchell|21gdd|2008 ONCA 757 (CanLII)|80 WCB (2d) 796}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atsL|21gdd|17| to 19}}<br>
-</ref> with relevancy being the main criteria.<ref>
+</ref> la pertinence étant le principal critère.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRPC|Brownell v Brownell|21n3m|1909 CanLII 21 (SCC)|(1909) 42 SCR 368}}{{perSCC-H|Anglin J}}</ref>
-; Disreputable Conduct
+; Conduite peu recommandable
-Witnesses, except for an accused, may be cross-examined on disreputable conduct so long as it relevant.<ref>
+Les témoins, à l'exception d'un accusé, peuvent être contre-interrogés sur une conduite peu recommandable dans la mesure où cela est pertinent.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Cullen|g97pj|1989 CanLII 7241 (ON CA)|52 CCC (3d) 459}}{{perONCA|Galligan JA}}<br>
 {{CanLIIRP|Titus|1txh7|1983 CanLII 49 (SCC)|[1983] 1 SCR 259}}{{perSCC|Ritchie J}}<br>
@@ Ligne 68 : / Ligne 65 : @@
 </ref>
-It is not permissible for either party to ask any questions about the veracity of another witness.<ref>
+Il n'est permis à aucune des parties de poser des questions sur la véracité d'un autre témoin.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Mian|ft8h1|2012 ABCA 302 (CanLII)|292 CCC (3d) 346}}{{TheCourtABCA}}</ref>
-; Form and Extent of Questioning
+; Forme et étendue de l'interrogatoire
-The cross-examiner is entitled to ask questions without letting the witness know the purpose of the questions, though is subject to the court's discretion and cannot be put in a way that would mislead the witness as to what is asked.<ref>
+Le contre-interrogateur a le droit de poser des questions sans que le témoin connaisse le but des questions, mais cela est soumis à la discrétion du tribunal et ne peut pas être posé d'une manière qui pourrait induire le témoin en erreur quant à ce qui est demandé.<ref>
-{{CanLIIRP|Haussecker|5r81|1998 ABPC 117 (CanLII)|233 AR 238}}{{perABPC|Fradsham J}}{{atsL|5r81|18| to 20}}</ref>
+{{CanLIIRP|Haussecker|5r81|1998 ABPC 117 (CanLII)|233 AR 238}}{{perABPC|Fradsham J}}{{atsL|5r81|18| à 20}</ref>
-It is permissible to use an encirclement technique wherein questions to exclude all alternative possibilities are asked and then not ask the desired possibility and allow the court to infer based on inference.<ref>
+Il est permis d'utiliser une technique d'encerclement dans laquelle des questions visant à exclure toutes les possibilités alternatives sont posées, puis de ne pas poser la possibilité souhaitée et de permettre au tribunal de déduire sur la base de l'inférence.<ref>
-{{ibid1|Haussecker}}{{atsL|5r81|21| to 22}}</ref>
+{{ibid1|Haussecker}}{{atsL|5r81|21| à 22}</ref>
-The process of cross-examination is afforded "wide discretion" on what can be questioned on.<ref>
+Le processus de contre-interrogatoire bénéficie d'un « large pouvoir discrétionnaire » sur les sujets sur lesquels des questions peuvent être posées.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Lyttle|1gd50|2004 SCC 5 (CanLII)|[2004] 1 SCR 193}}{{perSCC-H|Major and Fish JJ}}{{atsL|1gd50|41| to 45}}<br>
 {{CanLIIRP|Sylvain|g6pw2|2014 ABCA 153 (CanLII)|310 CCC (3d) 1}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (2:1){{atL|g6pw2|96}}<br>
 </ref>
-; Good Faith Basis
+; Base de bonne foi
-Suggestions can be put to the witness as long as there is a "good faith" basis for the question.<ref>
+Des suggestions peuvent être soumises au témoin à condition que la question repose sur une base de « bonne foi ».<ref>
 {{supra1|Lyttle}}{{atL|1gd50|47}} ("we believe that a question can be put to a witness in cross-examination regarding matters that need not be proved independently, provided that counsel has a good faith basis for putting the question.  It is not uncommon for counsel to believe what is in fact true, without being able to prove it otherwise than by cross-examination; nor is it uncommon for reticent witnesses to concede suggested facts — in the mistaken belief that they are already known to the cross-examiner and will therefore, in any event, emerge." [emphasis removed])</ref>
 This is often a function of what is known by the lawyer at the time of the examination. So, for example, a defence lawyer examining an eye-witness in a case who was told by the accused that he did the offence cannot suggest to the witness that they are mistaken as to whom they identified. Similarly, in a case where the defence is alibi, the defence counsel cannot still attack the credibility of the witnesses establishing the offence as he does not have a basis to believe they are being untruthful.
-The permissibility of the question is a "function" of: <reF>
+La licéité de la question est une « fonction » de : <ref>
 {{supra1|Lyttle}}{{atL|1gd50|48}} ("In this context, a “good faith basis” is a function of the information available to the cross-examiner, his or her belief in its likely accuracy, and the purpose for which it is used.")
 </ref>
-* "the information available to the cross-examiner";
+* « les informations dont dispose le contre-interrogateur » ;
-* their "believe in its likely accuracy"; and
+* leur « croyance en son exactitude probable » ; et
-* the "purpose for which it is used".
+* le « but pour lequel il est utilisé ».
-Questions based on information known to counsel that may be inadmissible, incomplete or uncertain may be put to the witness. The examiner however cannot put questions that they know to be false or are reckless as to the falsity of the information.<Ref>
+Des questions fondées sur des renseignements connus de l'avocat et qui pourraient être irrecevables, incomplets ou incertains peuvent être posées au témoin. L'examinateur ne peut cependant pas poser de questions s'il sait qu'elles sont fausses ou s'il est imprudent quant à la fausseté des informations.<Ref>
 {{supra1|Lyttle}}{{atL|1gd50|48}} ("Information falling short of admissible evidence may be put to the witness.  In fact, the information may be incomplete or uncertain, provided the cross-examiner does not put suggestions to the witness recklessly or that he or she knows to be false.")
 </ref>
-Questions are permitted that are in persuit of a hypothesis supported by reasonable inference, experience and intuition. Questions "caculated to mislead is ... improper and prohibited."<ref>
+Les questions sont autorisées qui visent à poursuivre une hypothèse étayée par une inférence, une expérience et une intuition raisonnables. Les questions « calculées pour induire en erreur sont… inappropriées et interdites ».<ref>
 {{supra1|Lyttle}}{{atL|1gd50|48}}  ("The cross-examiner may pursue any hypothesis that is honestly advanced on the strength of reasonable inference, experience or intuition.  The purpose of the question must be consistent with the lawyer’s role as an officer of the court:  to suggest what counsel genuinely thinks possible on known facts or reasonable assumptions is in our view permissible; to assert or to imply in a manner that is calculated to mislead is in our view improper and prohibited.")
 </ref>
-Uncorroborated gossip, such as that found online, may not be sufficient to meet the "good faith" requirement before it can be cross-examined on.<ref>
+Les ragots non corroborés, tels que ceux trouvés en ligne, peuvent ne pas suffire à répondre à l'exigence de « bonne foi » avant de pouvoir être contre-interrogés.<ref>
 Paciocco, "The law of evidence in a technological age"{{atp|222}}<br>
 </ref>
-; Collateral Matters
+; Questions collatérales
-There is no obligation to cross examine only on topics germane to the allegations. Counsel may cross-examine on collateral topics.<ref>
+Il n’y a aucune obligation de contre-interroger uniquement sur des sujets liés aux allégations. L'avocat peut contre-interroger sur des sujets accessoires.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Burgar|2d4cm|2010 ABCA 318 (CanLII)|490 AR 241}}{{TheCourtABCA}}
 </ref>
@@ Ligne 114 : / Ligne 111 : @@
 {{reflist|2}}
-===Duty to Cross Examine===
+===Obligation de contre-interroger===
-Counsel has a duty to cross-examine a witness that he intends to suggest is not being truthful or misleading.<ref>
+L'avocat a le devoir de contre-interroger un témoin dont il entend suggérer qu'il n'est pas véridique ou qu'il est trompeur.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|OGK|2325s|1994 CanLII 8742 (BC CA)|28 CR (4th) 129}}{{perBCCA|Taylor JA}}
 </ref>

« Contre-interrogatoires » : différence entre les versions

« Contre-interrogatoires » : différence entre les versions