When assessing the testimony of a witness, the mere fact that the witness has said the same thing before trial does not indicate that it is an honest or accurate account - consistency, without more, is a neutral factor. As stated by a unanimous Court of Appeal R. v. Nault, [2019] A.J. No. 112, beginning at para 19:

Prior consistent statements are viewed with caution because there is a danger in associating repetition with reliability. The fact that a witness has said something more than once does not make it more likely to be honest or accurate… Therefore, as explained by David M. Paciocco, …the common law has developed:

... two important rules that apply even where prior consistent statements are admissible pursuant to exceptions. The first is the "prohibited inference." Even where a prior consistent statement is admitted, "it is impermissible to assume that because a witness has made the same statement in the past, he or she is more likely to be telling the truth." The second is the "rule against corroboration." Even where a prior consistent statement is admitted, it is an error to treat the prior consistent statement as corroborating the in-court testimony. [citations omitted]

These rules and their rationales are sound and should continue to be respected. Any witness can lie twice or be mistaken twice. The mere repetition of a statement by the same witness does nothing to enhance its reliability. Even where an out-of-court statement is in evidence for the truth of contents, the trier of fact may not engage in either form of prohibited reasoning. He may not reason, without more, that because the witness has made the statement on a previous occasion, she is more likely to be telling the truth. He may not reason, without more, that a witness' out-of-court statement corroborates her own testimony. (emphasis added)

< Back