Should your spouse be compelled to testify against you in court?

[Barrister]

One of the oldest rules of evidence was that your spouse could not be called as a witness against you.

But today the Harper government introduced a bill that would, amongst other things, repeal that limitation:

Victims bill of rights would see spouses compelled to testify
The Canadian Press Posted: Apr 03, 2014 9:28 AM ET Last Updated: Apr 03, 2014 3:22 PM ET


'Victims should not have to live in fear': Harper 15:02


Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today in Mississauga, Ont., the details of a long-promised bill of rights for victims of crime that would force people to testify in court against a spouse.

"Our government believes that victims of crime deserve and should have a right to information, a right to protection, a right to participation, and where possible a right to restitution," said Harper.

Bill C-32, dubbed the Canadian victims bill of rights, was tabled in the House of Commons Thursday morning.

The legislation would change the Canada Evidence Act, which allows spouses to refuse to testify except in certain specific cases such as sexual assaults or crimes against youngsters.

The changes are part of a sweeping government bill that codifies the rights of victims, makes it easier for vulnerable witnesses to testify and requires that victims be given more information about cases.

For instance, victims can request a copy of a bail order, a probation order or the details of a conditional release.

The federal Conservatives have long complained that too much emphasis is placed on the rights of the accused, giving short shrift to the people affected by the crimes.

"Victims of crime and their families deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect," says the preamble to Bill C-32, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

It says victims have a right to be told when a criminal is deported or paroled and what parole restrictions may apply.

"It is important that victim's rights be considered throughout the criminal justice system," the preamble said.

Victims will also have the right to have the courts consider making a restitution order in all cases and to have such orders registered as a civil court judgment against the offender if the money isn't paid.

A group working to advance the equality of women and girls in Canada, based out of Vancouver, is worried the new bill meant to protect victims of abuse could actually hurt them.

"I would worry for example that forcing women to testify against abusive spouses could not only dissuade them from reporting crime in the first place, but might put them at greater risk throughout that process," said ​Kasari Govender, the executive director of the West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund, in an interview with CBC News.

'Invisible damage'

Sheldon Kennedy, a former NHL player who brought to light the sex crimes of former junior hockey coach Graham James, was invited by the government to attend the announcement in Mississauga.

Kennedy said he spent the last 17 years trying to explain to society "the invisible damage" that occurs when a person is a victim of crime.

"Victims deserve fair and equal treatment by the justice system and they need to be assured that the system itself doesn't re-victimize," Kennedy said.

A Calgary centre for abuse victims was renamed the Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre last May.

"Not only through my personal experience do I understand the life-changing impacts that being a victim of crime has had on myself and my family, but I've seen it first hand through the 917 cases that were handled in the last 11 months alone at the Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre," the former hockey player said.

Harper made the announcement in the company of Justice Minister Peter MacKay, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, Conservative MP for Mississauga South Stella Ambler and Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, whose daughter was murdered in 2002.

MacKay said the bill is the result of "an extensive" consultation process, in every province and territory, that began last summer.

"Your voice has been heard. And with this legislation a more compassionate and caring Canada will emerge," MacKay said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/victims-bill-of-rights-would-see-spouses-compelled-to-testify-1.2596307

To me it seems eminently sensible.  It was already quite antique in it's use - it only applied to legally married couples, not common law partners.  Why should that one relationship, along among all others, be exempted from appearing as a witness?

[MadImmortalMan]

No one should be compelled to testify. I don't see why wives should be any different.

[Capetan Mihali]

No one should be compelled to testify.

  Compulsory process is a core 6th Amendment right in the US and very important for safeguarding a defendant's right to a fair trial.

[MadImmortalMan]

No one should be compelled to testify.

  Compulsory process is a core 6th Amendment right in the US and very important for safeguarding a defendant's right to a fair trial.

I'm aware of that.

[Barrister]

No one should be compelled to testify.

  Compulsory process is a core 6th Amendment right in the US and very important for safeguarding a defendant's right to a fair trial.

And of course it is essential for the prosecution to be able to obtain a fair trial as well.

I can tell you I get calls on an almost weekly basis from a witness whining about how they don't want to come to court.  And I get it - it's inconvenient, people have other places to be, you might lose money from work, or whatever.  But without those witnesses my case would be thrown out.

Allowing witnesses to decide whether or not to show up also opens the door to witness intimidation.

[Capetan Mihali]

No one should be compelled to testify.

  Compulsory process is a core 6th Amendment right in the US and very important for safeguarding a defendant's right to a fair trial.

I'm aware of that.

You're aware of that...So you're saying you're OK with unfair trials?  A bunch of people can place you somewhere else when the crime took place, but they don't feel like getting involved, so nobody makes them show up, and you can't call any witnesses in your defense -- that's an OK outcome?

[MadImmortalMan]

I thought this was about testifying against the defendant. 

[Barrister]

I thought this was about testifying against the defendant. 

Well the rule I was talking about prohibited the prosecution from calling a spouse.

But then you spoke up that nobody should be compelled to testify at all.

[katmai]

I'd roll over on the lot of you.

[Barrister]

I'd roll over on the lot of you.

That's what I admire about you kat.

[Ed Anger]

Snitches get stiches

[garbon]

I'd roll over on the lot of you.

So we'd be flattened?

[garbon]

Snitches get stiches

I've never understood the "I'm not going to be a snitch/rat".

[katmai]

26 mins for that joke, I'm disappointed in you Garbo.

[garbon]

I only just got to the thread.