[ad_1]
The Ontario Court docket of Attraction’s resolution of R. v. Gough, 2013 ONCA 137, launched March 6, 2013, is one other reminder to trial judges of the numerous frailties of identification proof and the particular scrutiny required when assessing instances of this nature.
The case of R. v. Gough, Ontario Court docket of Attraction
Mr. Gough was convicted of a road stage theft in Ottawa. The one concern of the trial was the identification of the robber primarily based upon the eyewitness testimony of the sufferer. The interplay between the sufferer and robber was temporary and with none prior familiarity. A time period had elapsed from the time of the theft to the time the sufferer alleged to have seen him once more. The sufferer was additionally affected by schizophrenia on the time of the theft and never on his medicine. The accused was “in dock” recognized at trial 14 months after the very fact.
“Important frailties” and little corroborating proof have to be approached with warning.
In setting apart the conviction and ordering a brand new trial, Justice Epstein held that the trial choose erred in failing to correctly direct himself or scrutinize the “vital frailties” of the identification proof, noting that that is significantly necessary to do when there is no such thing as a unbiased corroborating proof. It additionally held that regardless of his self-caution that “the court docket must be cautious when id” and it’s “an space the place errors are made”, this was inadequate to the diploma of scrutiny required in these kind of instances. The Court docket of Attraction additionally famous that the choose dedicated the fallacy of equating certainty of the witness with accuracy. The Court docket wrote:
[ad_2]
Source link
