Timeline for If a court witness self-implicates are they automatically charged?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2023 at 14:34 | comment | added | sjy | Section 13 of the Charter appears to have a more confined effect than a literal reading of its text would suggest. See R v Henry [2005] 3 SCR 609. | |
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Feb 3, 2016 at 3:05 | comment | added | Zizouz212 | @CJDennis Thanks! That should be a good starting point. I'll hopefully try and update my answer by tomorrow if I can find something. It's getting late here and I should try to catch some sleep :) | |
| Feb 3, 2016 at 3:01 | comment | added | CJ Dennis | This page goes into "Privilege in respect of self-incrimination in other proceedings" but it is very long! I haven't read the whole thing but it seems it's more about the legal privilege than what happens if a witness does incriminate themself. | |
| Feb 3, 2016 at 2:53 | comment | added | Zizouz212 | @CJDennis I'll definitely try to find something on that. I don't know in the slightest Australian law, but I wouldn't be surprised - having a right would be kind of important in the administration of justice, imo. Even the U.S. has related provisions in their constitution. Do you think you have an idea of where I could find the example that you list? | |
| Feb 3, 2016 at 2:51 | comment | added | CJ Dennis | Interesting. I have heard a magistrate in an Australian court direct a witness not to answer a particular question because it could be admission of a crime or offence. Something like: "I refuse to answer on the grounds that I might incriminate myself." | |
| Feb 3, 2016 at 2:42 | history | answered | Zizouz212 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |