R. v. Singh, (1979) 2 Man.R.(2d) 91 (CA)

• Judge: Monnin, O'Sullivan and Huband, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: June 22, 1979
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1979), 2 Man.R.(2d) 91 (CA)

R. v. Singh (1979), 2 Man.R.(2d) 91 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Singh

Indexed As: R. v. Singh

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Monnin, O'Sullivan and Huband, JJ.A.

June 22, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of murder against the accused, who was accused of the arson murder of his wife. At his trial before a judge and a jury the man's three children testified. The accused was convicted and appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred in admitting some of the evidence about and by his children.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction.

The accused's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed on December 17, 1979 - see Bulletin of Proceedings in the Supreme Court of Canada, December 21, 1979, p. 3.

Evidence - Topic 4044

Witnesses - General - Interference with - Out of court questioning - A witness, a 15 year old girl, testified to a fact which supported the alibi of the accused, her father - After she left the stand a police officer questioned her in an interview room, pointing out evidence which incriminated her father and telling her that it was known that she lied on the stand - The Crown recalled her and she changed her testimony, saying that she had given false evidence because her father asked her to - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the questioning of the girl after she left the stand was improper interference with the witness, whether the motive or result of the interference was to produce true or false testimony - The Court of Appeal held, however, that a witness who has been interfered with should not be excluded from testifying and that the facts of interference, if brought out during testimony, would go to the weight to be given to the witness's testimony - See paragraphs 13 to 18.

Evidence - Topic 4756

Witnesses - Examination of witnesses - Prior inconsistent statement - When witness denies making statement - On cross examination by the Crown a 12 year old boy denied previously making a statement, which was inconsistent with his testimony - The Crown called a policeman, who testified about the prior inconsistent statement - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the policeman's testimony about the prior inconsistent statement was properly admitted only on the issue of the boy's credibility and not for the purpose of proving the statement - See paragraph 11.

Evidence - Topic 5544

Witnesses - Competence - Child of tender years - When first called to the stand, a ten year old girl told the trial judge that she did not know the difference between truth and lying - The trial judge held that she could not be sworn and refused to receive her evidence at all, because she did not appear to understand the duty to tell the truth - After she left the stand a social worker and a policeman questioned her and concluded that she did know the difference between the truth and a lie - The matter was reported to the trial judge, who recalled the girl and questioned her about her knowledge of truth and lies, concluding that she did know the difference and allowed her to testify, although not sworn - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in permitting the girl to be called back to the witness stand and in concluding that she could testify - See paragraphs 19 to 25.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kellett, [1975] 3 All E.R. 468, consd. [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Borrie and Lowe, The Law of Contempt, ch. 8 [para. 16].

Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourne Rev.), vol. III, para. 815 [para. 17].

Counsel:

C.K. Newcombe and G.A. Lawlor, for the informant/respondent;

R.G. Carbert and R.J. Wilinofsky, for the accused/appellant.

This case was heard on June 7, 1979, at Winnipeg, Manitoba, before MONNIN, O'SULLIVAN and HUBAND, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

On June 22, 1979, O'SULLIVAN, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal: