Case Summary

The accused was convicted of failing to remain at the scene of an accident. A new trial was ordered on appeal. At the second trial, the Crown cross-examined the accused on inconsistencies between his current testimony and his testimony at the first trial to impeach his credibility. The accused was convicted again, but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, holding that the cross-examination violated s. 13 of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that using a prior inconsistent statement from a former proceeding solely to impugn the credibility of an accused does not incriminate that person and therefore does not violate s. 13.