翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ R v Shein ・ R v Shelembe ・ R v Shivpuri ・ R v Généreux ・ R v Hall ・ R v Hancock ・ R v Handy ・ R v Hape ・ R v Harbottle ・ R v Harrison ・ R v Hasan ・ R v Hauser ・ R v Hay ・ R v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School, ex p Begum ・ R v Hebert ・ R v Henry ・ R v Hess; R v Nguyen ・ R v Heywood ・ R v Hibbert ・ R v Hinks ・ R v Holland ・ R v Horncastle ・ R v Hughes ・ R v Hughes (Canada) ・ R v Huhne ・ R v Hundal ・ R v Hutt ・ R v Hydro-Québec ・ R v Incedal ・ R v Instan Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク R v Henry ： ウィキペディア英語版 R v Henry ''R v Henry'' () 3 S.C.R. 609 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the protection against self-incrimination in section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court ruled that s. 13 does not protect an accused who chooses to testify at a retrial from having his or her previously volunteered testimony used against him or her. 〔Matthias, Don, (''Criminal Law Developments in Leading Appellate Courts'' ), p. 119 〕 The court further held that no distinction should be drawn between the use of such evidence to incriminate the accused directly or to impeach his or her credibility, but it subsequently restored this distinction in ''R. v. Nedelcu'', 2012 SCC 59. == Background == David Henry and Barry Riley had previously been convicted of the first degree murder of Timothy Langmead, who was tied to a chair and had duct tape wound around his mouth in relation to a dispute over a drug-related debt. Henry and Riley's murder convictions were overturned by the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the matter sent back for re-trial. Henry and Riley had testified in their own defence at the first trial and did so again at the second, but told a different story in the second trial. They were convicted again after the Crown cross-examined them on the inconsistent statements from the first trial. A majority of the Court of Appeal upheld their conviction, rejecting their argument that s. 13 ought to have prevented their previously given testimony from being revealed to the jury despite that they had voluntarily testified in their own defence on both occasions. Hall J.A. dissented, finding that the testimony on which the Crown had cross-examined the appellants was directly incriminating, and that previous Supreme Court decisions limited the use of such testimony to impeaching the accused's credibility. Henry and Riley appealed to the Supreme Court as of right as a result of the decision being split. The only live issue at the Supreme Court was the scope of ''R. v. Noël'' and ''R. v. Allen'', specifically, whether s. 13 was available to an accused who chose to testify at his or her retrial. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Henry」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.