Note[1]

(Last revised April 2016)

[1]              (NOW) testified for the Crown. I am now going to give you special instructions that apply to this witness. You have heard that (identify for the jury the characteristics of the witness that bring his or her credibility as a witness into serious question, e.g., accomplice, jailhouse informant, unsavoury witness[2] ). Testimony from this kind of Crown witness must be approached with the greatest care and caution because experience tells us (identify for the jury the reasons why evidence from witnesses with these characteristics is suspect, e.g., having an interest in the outcome of the case, a strong motivation to lie, the ability to conceal true motives, a desire to minimize his or her own involvement, etc.).

[2]              It is dangerous to base a conviction on unconfirmed evidence of this sort. You should consider whether (NOW)’s testimony is confirmed by other evidence in deciding whether the Crown has proved (NOA)’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.[3]

[3]              You should look for independent evidence tending to show that (NOW)’s testimony implicating (NOA) is true. By “independent”, I mean from a source unconnected to (NOW).

[4]              However, if you find (NOW)’s testimony trustworthy, you may rely on it even if it is not confirmed by other evidence.

Where allegations have been made of collusion between (NOW) and the potentially confirming witness, the jury should be reminded of this and told that they should look for confirmatory evidence that is independent of (NOW) and that relates to an important and relevant aspect of (NOW)’s testimony: R. v. Khela, 2009 SCC 4, [2009] S.C.J. No. 4, at para. 37 and 52.

Generally, the instruction must allow the jury to identify the evidence they are entitled to consider as being confirmatory. This will usually involve giving examples drawn from the evidence preceded by the instruction set out below. If there is extensive potentially confirmatory evidence an exhaustive review of the evidence is not appropriate as it may result in the charge being unbalanced in favour of the Crown. See R. v. Bevan, [1993] 2 S.C.J. 599.

(Where there is confirmatory evidence, the following may be added:)

[5]              I now want to illustrate the kind of evidence from this case that you might find confirmatory by giving you some examples. I emphasize that these are only examples. You may not find the evidence I am about to mention helpful in confirming (NOW)’s testimony, or you may find confirmation in other evidence that I do not mention. It is up to you to decide. 

(Refer to potentially confirmatory evidence.)