The appellant appealed his conviction for threatening bodily harm.
At trial, the complainant's statement to police was admitted as past recollection recorded because she could not remember the incident or making the statement.
On appeal, the Crown conceded the statement did not meet the Wigmore criteria for past recollection recorded, but argued it was admissible under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the statement met the necessity and reliability criteria, supported by circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness including proximity in time and lack of motive to lie.
The appeal was dismissed.
