During a criminal trial, the Crown sought to elicit from its witness in chief that she had given a previous inconsistent statement because she was afraid of the accused.
The defence objected, arguing this constituted impermissible oath-helping.
The court ruled that eliciting the fact of a previous inconsistent statement in chief does not constitute oath-helping, as it detracts from rather than bolsters the witness's truthfulness.
However, the court held that the explanation for the previous statement should generally wait for cross-examination and re-examination.
The Crown was permitted to elicit the fact of the previous statements and the timing of the witness's change of heart.
