What is the "cont confrontation principle" in the context of cross-examination of a witness for a party opposed in interest?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from R. v. Quansah, 2015 ONCA 237 (CanLII):
The rule in Browne v. Dunn, as it has come to be known, reflects a confrontation principle in the context of cross-examination of a witness for a party opposed in interest on disputed factual issues. In some jurisdictions, for example in Australia, practitioners describe it as a “puttage” rule because it requires a cross-examiner to “put” to the opposing witness in cross-examination the substance of contradictory evidence to be adduced through the cross-examiner’s own witness or witnesses.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the confrontation principle in cross-examination of a witness for a party opposed in interest? (Ontario, Canada)
Does the confrontation principle apply to cross-examination of a witness for a party opposed in interest? (Ontario, Canada)
Does a party who brings the motion as well as the witnesses upon whom the moving/applying party relies have an obligation to present and present witnesses to the motion? (Ontario, Canada)
Does the principle of corporate separateness override the equitable principles of equitable principles in the context of vicarious liability? (Ontario, Canada)
If a successful party accepts an offer to settle, can the successful party be ordered to pay all or part of the unsuccessful party’s costs? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a comment made by a party to a party’s communications entitled to be impugned as a matter of public interest? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for cross-examination in the context of evidence that contradicts an opposing witness? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the impact of a party’s email to the opposing party of a parenting motion for custody of the children? (Ontario, Canada)
In a non-Hague Convention case, what is the test for a stay of a return order where the parties' best interests of the child are compromised by postponing the determination of the children’s best interests in the country where they are habitually resident? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a crown attorney acting for the applicant in a litigation between parties not providing a service to the opposing party? (Ontario, Canada)
