Revamping law of prior consistent statements: R. v. Khan
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 @ 8:57 AM | By Anna Wong
An evidence revolution has been afoot for some years with the gradual ascendancy of a principled approach to admissibility in favour of the traditional rules-and-exceptions approach.
Marking the latest milestone in the revolution is the new analytical framework for admitting prior consistent statements articulated by Justice David Doherty in R. v. Khan 2017 ONCA 114.
For well over two centuries, since R. v. Hardy (1794) 24 St. Tr. 199, the rule at common law has been that a witness’s prior consistent statement is presumptively inadmissible. Such statement...
Marking the latest milestone in the revolution is the new analytical framework for admitting prior consistent statements articulated by Justice David Doherty in R. v. Khan 2017 ONCA 114.
For well over two centuries, since R. v. Hardy (1794) 24 St. Tr. 199, the rule at common law has been that a witness’s prior consistent statement is presumptively inadmissible. Such statement...
