The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Too Strong, Too Weak, or Both?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Section 13 of the Charter provides that [a] witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any As currently interpreted, this provision permits the Crown to cross-examine the accused on his testimony from another proceeding for the limited purpose of impeaching his credibility, yet prevents the Crown from using the accused's testimony from his own previous trial for any purpose. The authors argue that this interpretation of section 13 is both too strong and too weak. It is too strong in that it enables the accused to try out different defences in different trials without the trier of fact being given an opportunity to reconcile the differences; yet it is too weak in that the distinction between incriminating and credibility-attacking uses of the accused's testimony from proceedings is too frail to be sensibly applied. The authors illustrate the difficulties generated by the current interpretation of section 13 through a discussion of the decision in R. v. Henry (2003), 179 C.C.C. (3d) 307 (B.C. C.A.). Finally, the authors recommend that section 13 should be reinterpreted so that the admissibility of the accused's prior testimony would not depend on the distinction between incrimination and credibility, but that the accused's previous trial on the same offence would not be considered other proceedings. Under this reinterpretation, the Crown would be unable to use the accused's prior testimony from proceedings for any purpose, but would be free to use the accused's testimony from a previous trial on the same charge for any purpose.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".