When charged with a criminal complaint in Canada, your case could very well come down to evidence against you. Whether one is being accused of a summary or indictable offence, there are always important points: evidence can often be challenged. Understanding how to dispute improperly obtained or unreliable evidence is critical for protecting your rights and ensuring a fair trial. Sometimes, the ability to challenge evidence effectively means the difference between conviction and acquittal.
Understanding the Role of Evidence
Evidence, in a criminal case in Canada, is what the Crown builds on. Evidence could be physical items, witnesses, documents, digital, and so on. Not all evidence is good evidence; some may be ruled inadmissible if it was acquired through improper means or for reasons not meeting the legal threshold. This can often provide the best opportunity to make a meaningful dent in the Crown’s case against you. Fighting evidence requires knowledge of the exclusionary rules of Canadian law including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canada Evidence Act.
Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence
The most obvious method by which evidence can be challenged is by making the argument that it was acquired in breach of your Charter of Rights and Freedoms rights. For instance, if the police had searched your home, vehicle, or person illegally, everything found during the illegal search could be ruled out under s 24(2) of the Charter. This section provides that evidence obtained in a way that violates your constitutional rights may be excluded if its admission would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. A criminal lawyer will often review how evidence was obtained to see whether it could be excluded on this basis.
Challenging the Reliability of Witness Evidence
Witness testimony is a common form of evidence, but is not always reliable. Human memory is frail, and one expects a witness sometimes to err, exaggerate, or have their impression distorted by an extraneous factor such as stress or police interrogation. Cross-examination in Canada is very pivotal in undermining the credibility of a witness. Target questions will reveal inconsistencies, biases, or even lies from a witness’s testimony. The result could be that, if a witness’s testimony seems unreliable or untruthful, either the judge or jury will give less weight to the evidence, which will in turn weaken the case against the Crown.
Challenging Expert Evidence
Sometimes the Crown’s case is based on expert evidence such as forensic reports, medical findings, or digital analysis. While expert evidence can sound very authoritative, it is by no means irreproachable. The defense may challenge the expert’s qualifications, the methods used, or the conclusions derived. For instance, if a forensic expert examined evidence using outdated methods, then that evidence could be unreliable and thus challenged. Canadian courts have included that expert evidence must meet predefined criteria to be admissible, including relevance and reliability. If these criteria are not met, the evidence can be excluded or minimized.
Hearsay Evidence Challenges
Hearsay evidence, being a statement made out of court used as proof of the truth of some fact, is normally inadmissible in courts of Canadian jurisdiction. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, but the Crown may attempt using hearsay evidence in the hopes of strengthening their case against the accused. The most frequent method of attacking hearsay is to argue that the evidence does not meet any recognized exception or that it is not sufficiently reliable. Hearsay exclusion may succeed in preventing untested and perhaps unreliable statements from influencing your case outcome.
Chain of Custody Analysis
If such real evidence is to be admitted, the Crown must demonstrate the chain of custody for the substance, weapons, drugs, and other tangible items. That means proving that the exhibits were handled, stored, and transported in a non-contaminated fashion, with no tampering of it. The defense can then call into question the integrity of that evidence by showing gaps and discrepancies in the chain of custody. If the Crown fails to establish that the evidence remained intact and free from interference at all times during the investigation, then the court may consider such evidence as questionable or exclude it entirely.
Thus, challenging the evidence presented in a criminal case forms part of the key components of a good defense. Whether it be challenging the manner in which evidence was obtained, questioning the credibility of a witness, or examining its reliability, the process requires great knowledge of Canadian criminal law and the procedures involved. In weakening such evidence through successful challenges to its admissibility, one strengthens their position and enhances their chances of a favorable outcome in court. This involves an understanding of one’s rights and the legal tools to challenge evidence that could otherwise result in a prejudiced or unfair trial.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF OUR NONPROFIT COVERAGE OF ARTS AND CULTURE