R v CH

This matter concerned an appeal by the accused, R v CH, against a conviction. The appeal was heard by Blue, Stanley, and Doyle JJ. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of unsworn evidence given by young children during the trial, and whether the trial judge had erred in failing to conduct a sufficient inquiry into the children's understanding of the obligation to be truthful.

The legal issues before the appellate court were whether the trial judge had discharged their obligations under section 9 of the Evidence Act concerning the presumption of a person's capacity to give sworn evidence. Specifically, the court had to determine if there was "good cause" to warrant an inquiry into the children's understanding of the oath obligation, and if so, whether the inquiry conducted was adequate. The court also considered whether the verdict was against the evidence or the weight of the evidence, and whether there was an error of law in the judge's failure to provide adequate reasons for their decision.

The appellate court, in dismissing the appeal, affirmed that the starting point under section 9 of the Evidence Act is a presumption of capacity to give sworn evidence. It was held that a judge is not obliged to conduct an inquiry unless "good cause" is drawn to their attention. While the mere fact of a child being of tender years does not automatically constitute good cause, an inquiry is ordinarily warranted in such circumstances. However, the court found that in this instance, there was nothing about the children's ages or any other feature of the case that necessitated a more extensive inquiry than that which was undertaken. The court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in law and that the verdict was not against the evidence.