In a criminal trial involving charges of procuring and exercising control for sexual services, the Crown sought to ask a witness in examination-in-chief about prior inconsistent statements and the reasons for them, anticipating the witness would cite fear of the accused.
The defence objected, arguing this constituted self-serving oath-helping.
The court, preferring the approach in R. v. Durrant over R. v. Pinkus, ruled that the Crown could introduce the fact of prior inconsistent statements during examination-in-chief to avoid appearing to shield the witness.
However, the explanation for these statements, particularly the witness's fear, was to be reserved for re-examination, contingent on the defence cross-examining the witness on the statements.
