R v Jenkin (No 5)

In the case before the court, the respondent, a police officer, was prosecuted for assault and deprivation of liberty. The respondent claimed the two victims had consented to their treatment and that any injuries were caused by an accidental fall. The primary evidence against the respondent came from the two victims, who were unable to recall significant details of the incident. The trial judge denied the Crown’s request to allow the victims to read their statements to refresh their memories during their cross-examination. The Crown appealed the trial judge's decision, arguing the trial judge should have allowed the victims to read their statements to refresh their memories.

The legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge should have allowed the victims to read their prior statements to refresh their memories. The court considered the applicable common law, as well as the statutory provisions for allowing witnesses to use documents to refresh their memories. The court also considered the testimony of the victims, who stated they could not remember what they had said, and the extent to which their memories had been impaired by drug use. The court examined the trial judge's assessment of the victims' memories and whether it was accurate.

The court found that the trial judge's assessment of the victims' memories was accurate, and that the victims were unable to recall significant details of the incident. The court held that the trial judge was correct in refusing the Crown's request to allow the victims to read their statements to refresh their memories. The court found that the victims' memories were exhausted, and that the statements were not "fresh in the memory". The court noted the victims' own assessment of the quality of their memories and found it was insightful, particularly in light of the amount of drugs the victims had taken. The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing the Crown's request.

The court dismissed the Crown's appeal. The convictions and sentences of the respondent were upheld.