Il y a toujours un gros éléphant rose dans la salle d'audience lors d'un procès pour agression sexuelle. POURQUOI une plaignante inventerait-elle cet horrible mensonge. POURQUOI irait-elle voir la police pour se plaindre et POURQUOI subirait-elle un procès où elle sera contre-interrogée par un avocat de la defense? La défense doit-elle démontrer que le plaignant a des motifs pour fabriquer une plainte? La réponse est que la défense ne doit pas prouver que le/la plaignant(e) a menti.
Right to counsel when arrested and what that means for the police
You are arrested (perhaps for an impaired driving charge) and in police custody, asking to speak to counsel of your choice. Police contact this lawyer who does not pick up the phone. Police then ask you if you wish to speak to duty counsel. Is there any problem with this scenario? Recently, a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice found a breach of an accused person's section 10(b) rights to counsel of choice when the police asked the accused if he wished to speak to duty counsel while waiting for a call back from counsel of choice. The accused in that case was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample and being impaired. The accused brought a motion that the police had breached his section 10(b) rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the evidence of his refusal should be excluded as evidence.
A Complainant's Motive to Lie in Sexual Assault Trials
There is always a big pink elephant in the courtroom at a sexual assault trial. Why would a complainant make up this horrendous lie, go to the police complain and then put herself through a trial where she will be cross-examined? Does the defence have to demonstrate that the complainant has a motive to lie? The short answer is the defence must not prove a motive for the complainant to lie about the allegations.
