Canadian Law Question -

[Grey Fox]

Canadian Law state this :

Incriminating questions

5. (1) No witness shall be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer to the question may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person.

Answer not admissible against witness

(2) Where with respect to any question a witness objects to answer on the ground that his answer may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person, and if but for this Act, or the Act of any provincial legislature, the witness would therefore have been excused from answering the question, then although the witness is by reason of this Act or the provincial Act compelled to answer, the answer so given shall not be used or admissible in evidence against him in any criminal trial or other criminal proceeding against him thereafter taking place, other than a prosecution for perjury in the giving of that evidence or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 5;

What happens if the witness is the accused & answering the question would criminate him in the case at hand?

[Barrister]

Canadian Law state this :

Incriminating questions

5. (1) No witness shall be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer to the question may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person.

Answer not admissible against witness

(2) Where with respect to any question a witness objects to answer on the ground that his answer may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person, and if but for this Act, or the Act of any provincial legislature, the witness would therefore have been excused from answering the question, then although the witness is by reason of this Act or the provincial Act compelled to answer, the answer so given shall not be used or admissible in evidence against him in any criminal trial or other criminal proceeding against him thereafter taking place, other than a prosecution for perjury in the giving of that evidence or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 5;

What happens if the witness is the accused & answering the question would criminate him in the case at hand?

Accused never has to testify.  The Crown has to prove the case against the Accused.

If, however, the Accused chooses to testify, then like any other witness they must tell the truth and must answer all relevant questions placed to them.

[Grey Fox]

So the crown cannot ask the accused to testify?

[Barrister]

So the crown cannot ask the accused to testify?

Nope.  Right against self-incrimination and all that.

[Grey Fox]

I see. Thanks mate.

[Barrister]

Where it gets amusing is if you have two individuals who are involved in the same crime, but as the Crown you can choose to charge them separately.  You can then call Accused #2 in Accused #1's trial, and vice versa.

Now technically the law is very clear that when you call Accused #2, that person is a compelled witness, and anything they say can not be used against them in their own trial.  But practically speaking it can be very useful thing to do sometimes.

[garbon]

So what did you do, GF?

[Grey Fox]

Blew shit up.

[Valmy]

This is interesting to me.  So you do not have the right to remain silent on the stand but you do have the right to simply refuse to testify.  Interesting.

[Barrister]

This is interesting to me.  So you do not have the right to remain silent on the stand but you do have the right to simply refuse to testify.  Interesting.

That only goes for an Accused though.

[garbon]

This is interesting to me.  So you do not have the right to remain silent on the stand but you do have the right to simply refuse to testify.  Interesting.

That only goes for an Accused though.

Which, as far as I know, is the case here as well.

[Razgovory]

Can a witness refuse to testify on the grounds that he will incriminate himself?  Say he was out molesting children when he saw the accused robbing the bank?

[Grey Fox]

Can a witness refuse to testify on the grounds that he will incriminate himself?  Say he was out molesting children when he saw the accused robbing the bank?

As far as I understand this. No you can't. Whatever you say wouldn't be eligible as proof in your own trial tho.

[Barrister]

Can a witness refuse to testify on the grounds that he will incriminate himself?  Say he was out molesting children when he saw the accused robbing the bank?

As far as I understand this. No you can't. Whatever you say wouldn't be eligible as proof in your own trial tho.

This.  There is no equivalent to "pleading the fifth" in Canada.  If you are being compelled to testify though, your evidence can not be used against you.

[crazy canuck]

It gets more tricky in civil proceedings however.