R. v. Stirling (B.J.)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
• Citation: (2008), 371 N.R. 384 (SCC),2008 SCC 10,77 BCLR (4th) 1,229 CCC (3d) 257,371 NR 384,251 BCAC 62,[2008] 5 WWR 579,291 DLR (4th) 1,54 CR (6th) 228,[2008] SCJ No 10 (QL),[2008] 1 SCR 272
• Date: 14 March 2008

R. v. Stirling (B.J.) (2008), 371 N.R. 384 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.R. TBEd. MR.020

Beau Jake Stirling (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(31795; 2008 SCC 10; 2008 CSC 10)

Indexed As: R. v. Stirling (B.J.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.

March 14, 2008.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of two counts of dangerous driving causing death and one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm arising out of a single vehicle accident. He was acquitted on impaired driving charges. The accused appealed the convictions.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Levine, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2007), 234 B.C.A.C. 161; 387 W.A.C. 161, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4375.3

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding prior consistent statements - Two passengers died and the accused and Harding were injured in a single vehicle accident - The accused was convicted of dangerous driving causing death (two counts) and dangerous driving causing bodily harm - The accused appealed, submitting that the trial judge erred in accepting Harding's evidence that the accused (not Harding) was driving the vehicle - Particularly, the judge allegedly erred in relying on Harding's prior consistent statements (statements to medical personnel at the accident scene that the accused was driving) as supporting his credibility at trial, where Harding had a motive to lie (avoid conviction for breach of recognizance and subsequent civil action against the accused) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the prior consistent statements were admissible to assess credibility, where Harding's veracity was challenged by the accused on the basis of the alleged motive to fabricate and the prior consistent statements were made before the motive arose - The prior consistent statements were not used for the impermissible purposes of bolstering Harding's trial credibility generally or as confirming or corroborating Harding's in-court testimony - The prior consistent statements were confirmatory only in the sense of rebutting the allegation of recent fabrication - The judge did not find the accused to be the driver solely on the basis of Harding's evidence, but on the totality of evidence - The accused appealed, submitting that although the statements were admissible, the judge erred in considering them for their truth, rather than just to refute the allegation of recent fabrication - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal - Reading the challenged statements of the judge in the context of his entire reasons, the judge properly recognized that the statements lacked any probative value beyond rebutting the suggestion of recent fabrication based on the motives alleged by the accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 5404

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Credibility - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4375.3 ].

Evidence - Topic 1031

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Admissibility - Prior consistent statements - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4375.3 ].

Evidence - Topic 1130

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Relevance of evidence offered - Prior consistent statements - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4375.3 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Evans (B.J.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 629; 153 N.R. 212; 28 B.C.A.C. 81; 47 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Simpson and Ochs, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 3; 81 N.R. 267, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Béland and Phillips, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398; 79 N.R. 263; 9 Q.A.C. 293, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. O'Connor (P.) (1995), 84 O.A.C. 113; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Divitaris (A.) (2004), 186 O.A.C. 366; 188 C.C.C.(3d) 390 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. G.R.S. (1996), 148 N.S.R.(2d) 175; 429 A.P.R. 175 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. J.M.R., [2000] A.R. Uned. 228; 84 Alta. L.R.(3d) 92; 2000 ABCA 196, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Zebedee (J.) et al. (2006), 212 O.A.C. 23; 211 C.C.C.(3d) 199 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. J.A. (2006), 227 B.C.A.C. 119; 374 W.A.C. 119; 209 C.C.C.(3d) 423; 2006 BCCA 258, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Aksidan - see R. v. J.A.

R. v. Davis (G.N.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 759; 248 N.R. 44; 182 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 78; 554 A.P.R. 78, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Gagnon (L.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 621; 347 N.R. 355; 2006 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 313 [para. 7]; 314 [para. 11].

Counsel:

John Green, for the appellant;

Terrence L. Robertson, Q.C., and Mandeep K. Gill, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Green & Helme, Victoria, B.C., for the appellant;

Harper Grey, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 10, 2007, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 14, 2008, Bastarache, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Court.