Digest: R v Peepeetch, 2018 SKQB 66

• Date: February 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 66

Docket Number: CRM 8/17 JCR , QB18059

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2019-02-18

Judges:

• Kalmakoff

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Evidence � Admissibility ��Hearsay

Digest: The accused was charged with having committed a robbery while masked. During the initial investigation the police suspected another person, who was detained, interrogated and released. Later the accused was arrested and charged with the offence after the police received a tip from Crime Stoppers. The first suspect gave evidence at the preliminary inquiry as a witness and he was cross-examined by the accused�s counsel. However, at the time of trial, the police were unable to locate him to serve a subpoena on him to give evidence. Despite having obtained a warrant for his arrest because he was a material witness, the Crown feared that the police would not find him and applied to introduce the transcript of his evidence given at the preliminary inquiry as his evidence at the trial.
HELD: The application was dismissed. The transcript of the witness�s evidence given at the preliminary inquiry was hearsay and presumptively inadmissible unless it fell within the principled exception to the exclusionary hearsay rule. Although the Crown had proved the transcript met the criterion of necessity, the court found that it had not met the requirements of threshold reliability. The transcript indicated that the witness first implicated the accused but later admitted that he had told his spouse that it was he who had committed the robbery. In his questioning, he offered the explanation that what he told his spouse was untrue and that he was jesting. The court concluded that the admission raised serious questions about the witness�s trustworthiness and it would only be able to assess the witness�s contradictory evidence if he were cross-examined in person at the trial.

Statutes Considered:

• Traffic Safety Act, SS 2004, c T-18.1, s 146

Federal Statutes Considered:

• Charter of Rights, s 8
• Charter of Rights, s 9
• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 254(3)
• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 254(3)(a)
• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 254(5)
• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 258(1)(c)
• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s

Cases Considered:

• R v A.L.E., 2009 SKCA 65, [2011] 3 WWR 656, 359 Sask R 59, 256 CCC (3d) 476, 96 MVR (5th) 48
• R v Alex, [2017] 1 SCR 967, 2017 SCC 37, 349 CCC (3d) 383
• R v Bonter, 2013 SKQB 31, 412 Sask R...