Canadian Law Question -

[Barrister]

Et tu bb?

Plus, it's civil law case, could you do anything?

I dunno, since I don't know what it's about.  I don't mean to pry, but if you think I could help I'm happy to try.

[dps]

A witness cannot be compelled to divulge any communication made to him or her by his or her spouse during their life together.

Yankees, does this exist in American legislation?

Spousal privilege?  Yeah.  The testifying spouse owns the privilege and can waive it, though.  Oh, and only applies to private conversations.  A third party's presence waives it.

The 3rd party rule pretty much applies to all priviliged communications.

[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?

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.

Couldn't they use this to force you indicate where other incriminating evidence is?  I could see abuse in this.

"When you saw the accused run the red light, you said you were hiding an axe you had used to kill several highschool and college kids.  Where did you hide that axe.  I remind you Mr. Voorhees, you are under oath".

[Neil]

Dancing, no, protection against torture, yes.

Dancing was not widely protected in the US until the 1980s release of Footloose.

You know, they're remaking it practically shot-for-shot.

[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.

Couldn't they use this to force you indicate where other incriminating evidence is?  I could see abuse in this.

"When you saw the accused run the red light, you said you were hiding an axe you had used to kill several highschool and college kids.  Where did you hide that axe.  I remind you Mr. Voorhees, you are under oath".

It'd be an interesting 24(2) analysis to be sure (Canada does not have an automatic exclusionary rule).

But let's be honest - do we really expect people to just up and admit their own guilt on the stand, even knowing that technically that evidence can not be used against them?

[Razgovory]

Probably not, but I was curious about the legality of it.  I wasn't asking about the forcing them to confess on the stand (which they wouldn't have used against them in their own trial), but forcing them to lead the police to evidence that could be used in their trial.  Can the police and prosecution act on new information gained from a witness to find evidence they can use against the witness in a future trial?  If not, can a witness explain where he hid the incriminating evidence in a trial knowing that the police can't just go get it and legally use it in his prosecution?

[Barrister]

Probably not, but I was curious about the legality of it.  I wasn't asking about the forcing them to confess on the stand (which they wouldn't have used against them in their own trial), but forcing them to lead the police to evidence that could be used in their trial.  Can the police and prosecution act on new information gained from a witness to find evidence they can use against the witness in a future trial?  If not, can a witness explain where he hid the incriminating evidence in a trial knowing that the police can't just go get it and legally use it in his prosecution?

Without giving a big long dissertation...

Gathering evidence as a result of compelled testimony would almost certainly be a violation of the Accused's Charter rights.  You then have to go through an analysis under the Grant/Harrison rules under 24(2) of the Charter to determine whether the evidence found as a result of that violation would be admissible or not.

Like I said - an interesting 24(2) analysis.

[Ed Anger]

Dancing, no, protection against torture, yes.

Dancing was not widely protected in the US until the 1980s release of Footloose.

You know, they're remaking it practically shot-for-shot.

WTF?  Hollywood is a vampire feeding on its past.

[Sheilbh]

I was looking up the historical background to it a little while ago.  I was surprised it was under the Commonwealth/Lord Protectorate/Cromwell/whatever the short form of the English Roundhead government is called that a right against self-incrimination was adopted.  Dancing, no, protection against torture, yes.

You wouldn't be surprised if you'd read up on the Commonwealth rather than simply ccepting the 350 years of royalist propaganda that followed it