The Crown sought a voluntariness voir dire during the cross-examination of the accused, E.A., on his exculpatory video-recorded statement to police, intending to use it for impeachment on alleged inconsistencies and "variances in tone and emphasis." The defence argued this was untimely and prejudiced E.A.'s right to a fair trial and full answer and defence, as it changed the "case to meet" after E.A. elected to testify.
The court dismissed the Crown's application, ruling that no use could be made of the statement, preferring the line of authority emphasizing trial fairness and the "case to meet" principle over the Crown's argument that the statement was only marginally relevant until the accused testified.
