The right to make full answer and defence is not absolute. It must be applied and made subject to other rules that govern the conduct of a criminal trial. In Dersch v. Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 3820 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1505, Sopinka J., for the majority, wrote at para. 20: The right to full answer and defence does not imply that an accused can have, under the rubic of the Charter, an overhaul of the whole law of evidence such that a statement inadmissible under, for instance, the hearsay exclusion, would be admissible if it tended to prove his or her innocence.
"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.