Français
Note: Specimen jury instructions serve as a template that trial judges must adapt to the particular circumstances of each trial, not simply read out in whole. They are not designed to be delivered "as-is." More information about the use of specimen instructions is found in the Preface and A Note to Users, which you can find here.
Print

11.10 Prior Inconsistent Statements of Non-Accused Witness (Credibility)

(Last revised June 2012)

[1]              If you find that a witness said one thing in the witness box and something different about the same subject on an earlier occasion, this may be a factor in assessing the witness’s credibility.

[2]              It is for you to determine what effect any differences will have on your overall assessment of the witness’s credibility. They may have a huge effect, or no effect, or somewhere in between. Not every difference is important. Consider the extent and nature of any difference. Was it on a central point or something peripheral? Consider any explanation the witness gave. Was the explanation satisfactory?

[3]              Generally, the earlier statement may be used only in assessing the witness’s credibility. However, there is an exception when the witness, while testifying at trial, accepts all or part of the earlier statement as true. In that event, the earlier statement may also be considered as evidence of what happened, but only to the extent the witness accepted it as true. It is for you to decide what weight if any to give to the part of the earlier statement that the witness accepts as true.

(When the prior statement is under oath (e.g., preliminary inquiry or under oath at police station).)

[4]              If you conclude that a witness has given significantly different versions of the same story while under oath, you should evaluate that witness’s testimony very carefully, as this may suggest that the witness does not take the oath seriously.[83]

(Review relevant evidence and relate to the rule.)

[83] There may be circumstances when this instruction should be strengthened. For example, when a principal Crown witness’s testimony on a vital issue conflicts with his or her earlier sworn statement, it may be appropriate to tell the jury that it is dangerous to rely on the witness’s evidence. See: Binet v. The Queen, [1954] S.C.R. 52 at 54. Also, R. v. Maxwell, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1072.