The King v. Cohen

On the trial of an accused on a charge of manslaughter through the operation of a motor car, evidence given by a police constable of an alleged admission by the accused to him as he was investigating the accident shortly after it occurred, and when there was no charge against accused and he was not under arrest, that accused was the driver of the car, was rejected on the ground that accused must be presumed to know that he was required under penalty to give the information by virtue of s. 88 (as enacted by 20 Geo. V, c. 47, s. 6) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1927, c. 251, and therefore his statement was not voluntary.

Subs. 5 of said s. 88 enacted that " any written reports or statements made or furnished under this section shall be without prejudice, shall be for the information of the Registrar, * * * and the fact that such reports and statements have been so made or furnished shall be admissible in evidence solely to prove compliance with this section, and no such reports or statements, or any parts thereof or statement contained therein, shall be admissible in evidence for any other purpose in any trial, civil or criminal, arising out of a motor vehicle accident."

Held: The said evidence of the police constable was admissible. Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, [19381 O.R. 636, ordering a new trial, affirmed.

Statements made under compulsion of statute by a person whom theytend to incriminate are not for that reason alone inadmissible against him in criminal proceedings. Generally speaking, such statements are admissible unless they fall within the scope of some specific enactment or rule excluding them (Reg. v. Scott, Dearsley & Bell's Crown Cases 47; Reg. v. Coote, L.R. 4 P.C. 599, at 607).

Whether or not, in point of grammatical construction, oral as well as written statements are within the privilege created by s. 88 (5), yet, having regard to a. 40 of said Act and s. 285 (2) of the Criminal Code (as to a driver's duty, on the occasion of a motor car accident in which he is involved, to give his name and address-of which enactments the Ontario legislature must be presumed to have *PRESENT:-Duff CJ. and Rinfret, Crocket, Kerwin and Hudson JJ.