Evidence Handling

GATHERING AND MAINTAINING EVIDENCE

In many instances, a security guard tasked with overseeing a location will often be among the first individuals to arrive at the site. While they may not ultimately be responsible for conducting any investigative work, their role in safeguarding the area (and consequently preserving potential evidence) from harm or interference is of paramount importance. It is crucial to recognize that insufficiently protected or unprotected crime scenes can result in the damage or loss of critical evidence. Without proper evidence preservation, those responsible for any wrongdoing may never be held accountable for their actions.

The areas that security guards may need to secure can vary in size, posing different levels of difficulty, from a confined room with just one entrance/exit to a larger area with multiple points of access, such as an apartment complex.

Various methods can be employed to secure a scene, as diverse as the scenes themselves. The primary objective remains to ensure that sufficient evidence is preserved so that the individuals accountable can be identified.

Begin by assessing the situation:

Identify the existing evidence.

Determine its vulnerabilities.

Decide on the most suitable means of protecting it until authorities can conduct their investigation.

Recognize that certain evidence may be susceptible to damage or destruction when exposed to natural elements. For instance, fingerprints could be washed away by rain, snow, or wind, and footprints in the dust might be disturbed by passing traffic. It is essential to exercise common sense. If you suspect that specific activities in the area could disrupt evidence, request that those responsible cease their activities. Do not permit strangers to access the scene until authorized personnel have completed their work. Seal doors and windows to prevent unauthorized entry. Utilize plastic sheeting or any available resources to shield the scene from exposure to the elements. The key is to be resourceful and use whatever means necessary to aid in the preservation of evidence.

HOW CAN I ENSURE THE PRESERVATION OF A CRIME SCENE?

If you find yourself as the first responder at a crime scene, you might be required to provide testimony in court regarding your initial observations

It is of utmost importance to maintain and secure crime scenes, leaving them undisturbed until the arrival of law enforcement. In a way, this responsibility resembles your duty to care for evidence. Think about the CSI television shows you’ve watched; an undisturbed crime scene enables the police to conduct an investigation without concerns about evidence contamination.

While awaiting the police:

  • Seek medical attention for anyone in need.
  • Document everything you observe, hear, or smell, and be sure to note the time.
  • Create diagrams to enhance the clarity of your notes.
  • Record the names and addresses of all witnesses, along with any information they provide. Request that they remain at the scene until the police arrive.
  • Include descriptions of any individuals who appear suspicious near the crime scene.
  • Ensure that no unauthorized individuals enter the scene with the intention of tampering with or removing evidence. You can establish a barrier using materials like tape or simply keep doors closed.
  • Safeguard trace evidence, such as footprints, tire marks, or cigarette butts. In adverse weather conditions, consider using a plastic sheet to protect this evidence.
  • Accompany authorized personnel, like fire or ambulance crews, to the scene.
  • Document any modifications made to the original scene.

UPON THE POLICE’S ARRIVAL:

  • Identify the individual in charge and transfer responsibility for the scene to them. This step is crucial because the court will require evidence that there was no disruption in the chain of custody regarding evidence protection.
  • Finalize your notes, incorporating the name of the person in charge, their badge number, and the time when they assumed control of the scene.
  • Offer assistance to the police as required and subsequently resume your regular duties.

Scenario: First Responder at a Crime Scene

Imagine you’re Mark, a diligent security guard on the night shift at a corporate building. Your routine takes a serious turn when you receive an emergency call reporting a disturbance in the parking lot. As the first responder, you rush to the scene.

Initial Response:

  1. Assessing the Situation:
    • Scenario: Arriving at the parking lot, you quickly assess the situation. There’s a broken window on one of the parked cars, and a distressed individual nearby.
  2. Seeking Medical Attention:
    • Scenario: You prioritize safety, immediately calling for an ambulance to tend to the injured person while maintaining a safe distance from the potential crime scene.
  3. Documenting Observations:
    • Scenario: Equipped with your security notebook, you document the broken window, the injured party, and any other visible details. Time is of the essence, and you want to ensure accurate records.
  4. Creating Diagrams:
    • Scenario: Using your smartphone, you create a quick sketch of the crime scene. This will be vital in helping law enforcement understand the spatial relationships during their investigation.
  5. Recording Witness Information:
    • Scenario: You approach onlookers, calmly collecting their names, addresses, and any information they might have. Stress the importance of staying at the scene until the police arrive.
  6. Describing Suspicious Individuals:
    • Scenario: You notice a person hastily leaving the area. Quick on your feet, you jot down their description to share with law enforcement.
  7. Establishing a Barrier:
    • Scenario: Using caution tape from your emergency kit, you cordon off the affected area to prevent contamination and preserve potential evidence.
  8. Safeguarding Trace Evidence:
    • Scenario: Spotting tire marks nearby, you cover them with plastic sheets from your emergency kit to shield against the rain, safeguarding crucial trace evidence.
  9. Accompanying Authorized Personnel:
    • Scenario: When the ambulance arrives, you escort the medical personnel to the scene, ensuring their movements don’t interfere with potential evidence.

Upon Police Arrival:

  1. Identifying the Person in Charge:
  • Scenario: The police arrive, and you promptly identify the officer in charge. You brief them on your observations and hand over the responsibility for the scene.
  1. Finalizing Your Notes:
  • Scenario: Before leaving, you finalize your notes, including the name and badge number of the officer in charge, and the exact time they assumed control of the scene.
  1. Offering Assistance to Police:
  • Scenario: You offer assistance to the police, providing any additional information they might need, then discreetly return to your regular duties, knowing you played a crucial role in preserving the crime scene until the professionals took over.

Search and Evidence

Ontario Evidence Act

2. This Act applies to all actions and other matters whatsoever respecting which the Legislature has jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 2.

Witnesses, not incapacitated by crime, etc

6. No person offered as a witness in an action shall be excluded from giving evidence by reason of any alleged incapacity from crime or R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. .

In simple terms, this statement means that if someone is presented as a witness in a legal case, they cannot be prevented from providing evidence just because they are believed to be incapable due to a crime they committed or because they might have a personal interest in the outcome of the case. This rule is outlined in the laws of Ontario, Canada, under the Revised Statutes of Ontario (R.S.O.) for the year 1990, in Chapter E.23, Section 6.

So, as a security guard, this information might be relevant if you ever find yourself involved in a legal situation where you or others may be called as witnesses. It emphasizes the principle that individuals, even if they have a criminal history or a personal stake in the case, still have the right to provide evidence in court.

Admissibility notwithstanding interest or crime

7. Every person offered as a witness shall be admitted to give evidence although he or she has an interest in the matter in question or in the event of the action and although he or she has been previously convicted of a crime or R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 7.

In simple terms, this statement means that anyone presented as a witness in a legal case should be allowed to provide evidence, even if they have a personal interest in the matter being discussed or if they have a previous criminal conviction. This rule is outlined in the laws of Ontario, Canada, under the Revised Statutes of Ontario (R.S.O.) for the year 1990, in Chapter E.23, Section 7.

As a security guard, understanding this means that individuals with a connection to the case, whether through personal interest or a past criminal record, still have the right to testify in court. It emphasizes the importance of considering their testimony on its merits rather than automatically disqualifying them based on their background or involvement in the matter.

Witness not excused from answering questions tending to criminate

9. (1) A witness shall not be excused from answering any question upon the ground that the answer may tend to criminate the witness or may tend to establish his or her liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person or to a prosecution under any Act of the Legislature. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 9 (1).

In simple terms, this statement means that a witness cannot refuse to answer a question in court by claiming that their response might incriminate them or make them liable in a civil case or prosecution. The law in Ontario, Canada, specifically the Revised Statutes of Ontario (R.S.O.) for the year 1990, Chapter E.23, Section 9(1), emphasizes that witnesses are required to answer questions truthfully, even if the answers might have legal consequences for them in the future.

From the perspective of a security guard, it underscores the importance of cooperation and truthfulness when providing testimony or information in legal proceedings. Witnesses are expected to answer questions to the best of their ability, and they cannot use the fear of self-incrimination as a reason to withhold information.

Communications made during marriage

11. A person is not compellable to disclose any communication made to the person by his or her spouse during the 2005, c. 5, s. 25 (5).

In simple terms, this statement means that a person cannot be forced to reveal any private conversations they had with their spouse. This legal provision, found in the legislation from the year 2005, Chapter 5, Section 25(5), protects the confidentiality of communications between spouses. It recognizes the importance of preserving the privacy of discussions within a marriage and prevents individuals from being compelled to disclose or share such communications in legal proceedings.

From the perspective of a security guard, this may not have direct relevance to their duties, but it emphasizes the broader legal principle of respecting the privacy of personal communications, even within the context of legal matters.

Expert evidence

12. Where it is intended by a party to examine as witnesses persons entitled, according to the law or practice, to give opinion evidence, not more than three of such witnesses may be called upon either side without the leave of the judge or other person R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 12.

In simple terms, this statement means that if a party in a legal case plans to bring in witnesses who are supposed to provide expert opinions, they can only call up to three of these witnesses on each side without getting permission from the judge or another authorized person. This rule is outlined in the legislation known as R.S.O. 1990, Chapter E.23, Section 12.

From the perspective of a security guard, this legal provision might not have a direct impact on their daily duties. It’s a procedural rule within the legal system that regulates how many expert witnesses can be presented without additional approval in certain situations.

Actions by or against incapable persons, etc

14. An opposite or interested party in an action by or against one of the following persons shall not obtain a verdict, judgment or decision on the party’s own evidence, unless the evidence is corroborated by some other material evidence:

  1. A person who has been found,
    1. incapable of managing property under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 or under the Mental Health Act,
    2. incapable of personal care under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, or
  1. incapable by a court in Canada or
  2. A patient in a psychiatric
  3. A person who, because of a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act, is incapable of giving 2009, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 32 (1).

In simple terms, this statement means that if someone is involved in a legal action, and they fall into certain categories, the opposing party cannot win the case based solely on their own evidence unless that evidence is supported by other credible evidence.

The categories include:

  1. Someone who has been found incapable of managing their property or personal care under specific laws.
  2. Someone who has been declared incapable by a court in Canada.
  3. A patient in a psychiatric facility.
  4. Someone who, due to a mental disorder, is incapable of giving evidence.

This rule is designed to ensure that the evidence presented by individuals in these situations is supported and verified by additional evidence, making the legal process more fair and reliable.

From the perspective of a security guard, this legal provision may not have a direct impact on their daily duties, as it pertains to rules of evidence in legal proceedings.

Presumption of competency

18. (1) A person of any age is presumed to be competent to give evidence 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).

Challenge, examination

(2) When a person’s competence is challenged, the judge, justice or other presiding officer shall examine the person. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).

Evidence of witness under 14

  1. (1) When the competence of a proposed witness who is a person under the age of 14 is challenged, the court may admit the person’s evidence if the person is able to communicate the evidence, understands the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation and testifies under oath or solemn affirmation 1995, c. 6, s. 6

In simple terms, this statement means that if there’s a question about whether a person under the age of 14 is capable of being a witness, a court may allow their testimony if they can communicate effectively, understand the importance of telling the truth, and are willing to testify while taking an oath or solemn affirmation.

From the perspective of a security guard, this legal provision might not have a direct impact on their daily duties unless they find themselves involved in a situation where a person under the age of 14 is a witness and their competence is being questioned in a legal context.

Corroboration not required, witness under 14

  1. (1) Evidence given by a person under the age of 14 need not be corroborated 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).

Attendance of witnesses

19. A witness served in due time with a summons issued out of a court in Ontario, and paid proper witness fees and conduct money, who makes default in obeying such summons, without any lawful and reasonable impediment, in addition to any penalty he or she may incur as for a contempt of court, is liable to an action on the part of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, he or she has been summoned for any damage that such person may sustain or be put to by reason of such person may sustain or be put to by reason of such default R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 19.

In simple terms, this means that if a witness in Ontario is properly notified to appear in court, receives the necessary fees, and doesn’t show up without a valid reason, they can be held liable for any damages caused by their failure to appear. This includes any penalties for contempt of court as well as any additional harm or costs that the person who summoned them incurs due to their absence.

From the perspective of a security guard, this legal provision doesn’t directly impact their daily duties unless they are somehow involved in the legal process and need to ensure the proper summons and notifications are delivered and received.

Consequences of disobedience

8. In case any person so served does not appear according to the exigency of such writ or process, the Court out of which the same issued, may, upon proof made of the service thereof, and of such default to the satisfaction of such Court, transmit a certificate of such default, under the seal of the same Court, to any of Her Majesty’s Superior Courts of Law or Equity in that part of Canada in which the person so served may reside, being out of the jurisdiction of the Court transmitting such certificate, and the Court to which such certificate is sent, shall thereupon proceed against and punish such person so having made default, in like manner as they might have done if such person had neglected or refused to appear to a writ of subpoena or other similar process issued out of such last mentioned Court.

In simple terms, if someone is properly served with a legal document (like a court summons) and doesn’t show up as required, the court that issued the document can send a certificate of this default to another court where that person resides. The receiving court can then take action against the person who didn’t appear, similar to how they would handle someone not responding to a summons issued directly by that court.

From a security guard’s perspective, this legal process is part of the broader legal system, and their role might involve assisting in the delivery or receipt of legal documents but doesn’t directly involve them in the court proceedings or enforcement.

Examination of witnesses, proof of contradictory written statements

20. A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him or her in writing, or reduced into writing, relative to the matter in question, without the writing being shown to the witness, but, if it is intended to contradict the witness by the writing, his or her attention shall, before such contradictory proof is given, be called to those parts of the writing that are to be used for the purpose of so contradicting the witness, and the judge or other person presiding at any time during the trial or proceeding may require the production of the writing for his or her inspection, and may thereupon make such use of it for the purposes of the trial or proceeding as he or she thinks fit. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 20.

Proof of previous conviction of a witness

22.(1) A witness may be asked whether he or she has been convicted of any crime, and upon being so asked, if the witness either denies the fact or refuses to answer, the conviction may be proved, and a certificate containing the substance and effect only, omitting the formal part, of the charge and of the conviction, purporting to be signed by the officer having the custody of the records of the court at which the offender was convicted, or by the deputy of the officer, is, upon proof of the identity of the witness as such convict, sufficient evidence of the conviction, without proof of the signature or of the official character of the person appearing to have signed the certificate. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 22 (1).

In simple terms, if a witness is asked in court whether they’ve been convicted of a crime and they deny it or refuse to answer, the court can prove the conviction. They can do this by using a certificate signed by the officer who has custody of the court records where the person was convicted. The certificate, which includes only the important information about the charge and conviction (not the formal parts), is enough evidence of the conviction if the identity of the witness as the convict is proven. The court doesn’t need to separately prove the signature or the official status of the person who signed the certificate.

Copies of public books or documents

32. (1) Where a book or other document is of so public a nature as to be admissible in evidence on its mere production from the proper custody, a copy thereof or extract there from is admissible in evidence if it is proved that it is an examined copy or extract, or that it purports to be signed and certified as a true copy or extract by the officer to whose custody the original was entrusted. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 32 (1).

In simple terms, if there’s a book or document that is considered public and can be used as evidence just by showing it in court, a copy or extract from it can also be used as evidence. To use the copy or extract, it needs to be shown that it has been examined and verified as a true copy by the officer who has the original document. This verification can be in the form of a signature and certification on the copy or extract.

Books and records of banks

(2) Subject to this section, a copy of an entry in a book or record kept in a bank is in any action to which the bank is not a party proof in the absence of evidence to the contrary of such entry and of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 33 (2); 1993, c. 27, Sched.

Electronic records

34.1  (1) In  this  section,  “data”  means  representations,  in  any  form,  of information or concepts;

“electronic record” means data that is recorded or stored on any medium in or by a computer system or other similar device, that can be read or perceived by a person or a computer system or other similar device, and includes a display, print out or other output of that data, other than a printout referred to in subsection (6);

“electronic records system” includes the computer system or other similar device by or in which data is recorded or stored, and any procedures related to the recording and storage of electronic records. 1999, c. 12, Sched. B, s. 7 (2).

Standards

(8) For the purpose of determining under any rule of law whether an electronic record is admissible, evidence may be presented in respect of any standard, procedure, usage or practice on how electronic records are to be recorded or stored, having regard to the type of business or endeavour that used, recorded or stored the electronic record and the nature and purpose of the electronic record. 1999, c. 12, Sched. B, s. 7 (2).

35. (1) In this section, “business” includes every kind of business, profession, occupation, calling, operation or activity, whether carried on for profit or otherwise;

“Record” includes any information that is recorded or stored by means of any device. (“document”) R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 35 (1).

Where business records admissible

(2) Any  writing or record made of any act, transaction, occurrence or event is admissible as evidence of such act, transaction, occurrence or event if made in the usual and ordinary course of any business and if it was in the usual and ordinary course of such business to make such writing or record at the time of such act, transaction, occurrence or event or within a reasonable time thereafter. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 35 (2).

An Act respecting witnesses and evidence PART I

Application

  1. This Part applies to all criminal proceedings and to all civil proceedings and other matters whatever respecting which Parliament has
  2. A person is not incompetent to give evidence by reason of interest or

Accused and spouse

4. (1) Every person charged with an offence, and, except as otherwise provided in this section, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of the person so charged, is a competent witness for the defence, whether the person so charged is charged solely or jointly with any other person

Accused and spouse

  1. The wife or husband of a person charged with an offence under subsection 136(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act or with an offence under any of sections 151, 152, 153, 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3), or sections 170 to 173, 179, 212, 215, 218, 271 to 273, 280 to 283, 291 to 294 or 329 of the Criminal Code, or an attempt to commit any such offence, is a competent and compellable witness for the prosecution without the consent of the person

Communications during marriage

  1. No husband is compellable to disclose any communication made to him by his wife during their marriage, and no wife is compellable to disclose any communication made to her by her husband during their Offences against young persons
  2. The wife or husband of a person charged with an offence against any of sections 220, 221, 235, 236, 237, 239, 240, 266, 267, 268 or 269 of the Criminal Code where the complainant or victim is under the age of fourteen years is a competent and compellable witness for the prosecution without the consent of the person Saving
  3. Nothing in this section affects a case where the wife or husband of a person charged with an offence may at common law be called as a witness without the consent of that

Imagine a situation where a person is accused of a serious crime involving a young person. In this case:

  1. Spousal Privilege: Normally, spouses don’t have to reveal private conversations they had during their marriage. So, a husband doesn’t have to tell anyone what his wife told him during their marriage, and vice versa.
  2. Exception for Serious Offences Against Young Persons: However, if the accused person is charged with a serious crime against a young person, like those listed (sections 220, 221, 235, etc., in the Criminal Code), the spouse of the accused can be forced to testify in court for the prosecution. This is an exception to the usual rule, but it only applies in cases involving serious crimes against young people.
  3. Common Law Exception: If, under regular common law (the usual legal rules and traditions), a spouse can already be called as a witness without needing permission, this rule doesn’t change that.

So, in simpler terms, spousal conversations are usually private, but if the accused has committed a serious crime against a young person, the spouse might have to testify against them.

Failure to testify

The failure of the person charged, or of the wife or husband of that person, to testify shall not be made the subject of comment by the judge or by counsel for the R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 4; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 17; 2002, c. 1, s. 166.

Incriminating questions

5. (1) No witness shall be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer to the question may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any

Answer not admissible against witness

(2) Where with respect to any question a witness objects to answer on the ground that his answer may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person, and if but for this Act, or the Act of any provincial legislature, the witness would therefore have been excused from answering the question, then although the witness is by reason of this Act or the provincial Act compelled to answer, the answer so given shall not be used or admissible in evidence against him in any criminal trial or other criminal proceeding against him thereafter taking place, other than a prosecution for perjury in the giving of that evidence or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

6.1 For greater certainty, a witness may give evidence as to the identity of an accused whom the witness is able to identify visually or in any other sensory manner. 1998, c. 9, s. 1.

Imagine a situation at a security post where a guard has witnessed something, and there’s a legal inquiry:

  1. Right to Refuse Answer: If the guard is asked a question and they think that answering might get them in trouble, either with the law or in a civil lawsuit, they can say, “I don’t want to answer because it might make things worse for me.”
  2. Forced to Answer: However, if there’s a law saying they have to answer (like the Security Act), they must answer, but here’s the catch:
  3. Protection from Criminal Use: Whatever they say cannot be used against them in a criminal trial. If they spill the beans, that information can’t be brought up later in court against them, unless they’re being charged with lying or giving contradictory information.
  4. Exception for Identifying Someone: Just to be clear, if the guard is asked about identifying someone they saw, like recognizing a person visually or through some other sense, they can answer this without worrying that the information will be used against them later.

So, in simple terms, if a security guard is compelled to answer a question, what they say can’t be used against them in a criminal trial, except if they lie or give contradictory information. And they can always answer questions about identifying someone without this protection.

Expert witnesses

7. Where, in any trial or other proceeding, criminal or civil, it is intended by the prosecution or the defence, or by any party, to examine as witnesses professional or other experts entitled according to the law or practice to give opinion evidence, not more than five of such witnesses may be called on either side without the leave of the court or judge or person R.S., c. E-10, s. 7.

Handwriting comparison

8. Comparison of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the court to be genuine shall be permitted to be made by witnesses, and such writings, and the evidence of witnesses respecting those writings, may be submitted to the court and jury as proof of the genuineness or otherwise of the writing in R.S., c. E-10, s. 8.

Adverse witnesses

9. (1) A party producing a witness shall not be allowed to impeach his credit by general evidence of bad character, but if the witness, in the opinion of the court, proves adverse, the party may contradict him by other evidence, or, by leave of the court, may prove that the witness made at other times a statement inconsistent with his present testimony, but before the last mentioned proof can be given the circumstances of the supposed statement, sufficient to designate the particular occasion, shall be mentioned to the witness, and he shall be asked whether or not he did make the

Previous statements by witness not proved adverse

(2) Where the party producing a witness alleges that the witness made at other times a statement in writing, reduced to writing, or recorded on audio tape or video tape or otherwise, inconsistent with the witness’ present testimony, the court may, without proof that the witness is adverse, grant leave to that party to cross-examine the witness as to the statement and the court may consider the cross-examination in determining whether in the opinion of the court the witness is adverse. R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 9; 1994, c. 44, s. 85.

Cross-examination as to previous statements

10. (1) On any trial a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements that the witness made in writing, or that have been reduced to writing, or recorded on audio tape or video tape or otherwise, relative to the subject-matter of the case, without the writing being shown to the witness or the witness being given the opportunity to listen to the audio tape or view the video tape or otherwise take cognizance of the statements, but, if it is intended to contradict the witness, the witness’ attention must, before the contradictory proof can be given, be called to those parts of the statement that are to be used for the purpose of so contradicting the witness, and the judge, at any time during the trial, may require the production of the writing or tape or other medium for inspection, and thereupon make such use of it for the purposes of the trial as the judge thinks

Examination as to previous convictions

12. (1) A witness may be questioned as to whether the witness has been convicted of any offence, excluding any offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act, but including such an offence where the conviction was entered after a trial on an indictment. Proof of previous convictions

(1.1)      If the witness either denies the fact or refuses to answer, the opposite party may prove the conviction. 

Solemn affirmation by witness instead of oath

  1. (1) A person may, instead of taking an oath, make the following solemn affirmation:

I solemnly affirm that the evidence to be given by me shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Effect

(2) Where a person makes a solemn affirmation in accordance with subsection (1), his evidence shall be taken and have the same effect as if taken under oath. R.S., 1985, c. C- 5, s. 14; 1994, c. 44, s. 87.

  1. Any witness whose evidence is admitted or who makes a solemn affirmation under this section or section 14 is liable to indictment and punishment for perjury in all respects as if he had been R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 15; 1994, c. 44, s. 88.

Evidence shall be received

  1. The evidence of a proposed witness under fourteen years of age shall be received if they are able to understand and respond to Burden as to capacity of witness

30. (1) Where oral evidence in respect of a matter would be admissible in a legal proceeding, a record made in the usual and ordinary course of business that contains information in respect of that matter is admissible in evidence under this section in the legal proceeding on production of the record.

Inference where information not in business record

(2) Where a record made in the usual and ordinary course of business does not contain information in respect of a matter the occurrence or existence of which might reasonably be expected to be recorded in that record, the court may on production of the record admit the record for the purpose of establishing that fact and may draw the inference that the matter did not occur or exist.

Authentication of electronic documents

  1. Any person seeking to admit an electronic document as evidence has the burden of proving its authenticity by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the electronic document is that which it is purported to 2000, c. 5, s. 56.

Application of best evidence rule — electronic documents

  1. (1) The best evidence rule in respect of an electronic document is satisfied
  1. on proof of the integrity of the electronic documents system by or in which the electronic document was recorded or stored; or
  2. if an evidentiary presumption established under section 4 applies.

Printouts

(2) Despite subsection(1), in the absence of evidence to the contrary, an electronic document in the form of a printout satisfies the best evidence rule if the printout has been manifestly or consistently acted on, relied on or used as a record of the information recorded or stored in the printout. 2000, c. 5, s. 5

Evidence Preparation and Collection

Evidence preparation is very important. You will often be in a position to affect evidence, so for any serious crime, remember:

  • Do not touch anything.
  • Secure the area and call the police
  • Do not let anyone in until the police arrive and then they are in charge.
  • Record everything you have seen and or touched.
  • Do not leave the crime scene until police advise you to do so.
  • Do not disclose information to the media or others not directly involved with the crime scene.

Principles of Evidence Collection

Collecting evidence is a very difficult task for most contract security as there is no way to properly secure, preserve and maintain continuity of evidence.

The following six steps should be followed when you encounter material you think might be evidence.

  • Collect the evidence
  • Secure the material
  • Preserve the evidence
  • Identify the items
  • Maintain continuity of evidence
  • Log what you collect

Being able to identify evidence, document, collect and package evidence correctly from a crime scene is a difficult task. The following steps cover the basics. Remember it is always best to leave the collection of evidence to the professionals, if possible.

Collecting Evidence

Identify what evidence is relevant to your investigation.

Once it has been identified, then record all the details before actually collecting. Location, Temperature, Preliminary Identification, colours etc. must be recorded in your memo book.

Photograph the evidence and use a scale (small ruler to assist with dimensions). Secure the evidence in a plastic bag and seal the bag with evidence tape and fill out an evidence tag. To be admissible in a court of law, physical evidence must be properly documented and be identified by every person that has handled it. This ‘chain of custody’ begins with the person who first collected the physical evidence.

Preserving evidence means that the evidence is not cross contaminated. Ensure that each piece of evidence is sealed in its own evidence bag. Always sign across the evidence tape with initials and date of collection.

Identify the item fully on the evidence tag and attach it to the bag. A property receipt is attached to the evidence package and must be signed over to the evidence custodian.

Every time the evidence is handled, the property receipt needs to be amended and the property log needs to be up-dated

Commonly, a security guard assigned responsibility for a site will be one of the first persons to arrive at the scene. And, while he or she will not ultimately have responsibility for investigating any crime that has resulted, he or she will play a critical role in protecting the scene (and ultimately preserving any evidence) from damage or injury. Of course, if a crime scene is not protected or is inadequately protected, crucial evidence can be damaged or even lost. Without evidence the perpetrator(s) may not ever be held accountable for their actions.

The areas that security guards may have to protect will range in size (and therefore difficulty) from an interior room with only one entrance/ exit, to a large area with many means of access, such as an apartment building.

Methods of securing a scene are as numerous as the scenes themselves. The key is to keep the ultimate objective in mind — allowing enough evidence to be preserved so that the person or persons responsible can be made accountable.

Review the situation:

  • What evidence is present?
  • How is it vulnerable?
  • What is the best method of protecting it until the authorities can complete their  investigation?

Some evidence may be damaged or destroyed by exposure to the elements. For example, fingerprints may be washed off if exposed to rain, snow, and wind. A footprint in the dust may be disturbed by traffic in the area. Use your common sense. If you believe that evidence may be disturbed by some particular activity in the area, ask whoever is responsible to cease the activity. Do not allow strangers access to the scene until the authorities are through. Close doors and windows to prevent people from accessing the scene. Use plastic sheeting to prevent exposure of the scene to the elements. The key here is to be creative and to use whatever is at hand to assist you in preserving the evidence.

Scenario: Vandalism at a Corporate Office Building

Step 1: Collect A security guard patrolling the exterior of a corporate office building notices broken windows and graffiti on the building’s walls. The guard immediately recognizes this as vandalism and decides to collect evidence.

Step 2: Secure The security guard secures the area by creating a perimeter around the vandalized sections of the building, using temporary barriers or cones to prevent unauthorized access. The guard also ensures that the area is well-lit for safety and evidence collection.

Step 3: Preserve The security guard avoids touching or altering any of the evidence. This means refraining from cleaning or removing any graffiti and not moving or tampering with any broken glass or objects that may serve as evidence.

Step 4: Identify The security guard takes photographs of the vandalism, capturing close-up shots of the graffiti and the damage to the building. The guard also notes the date and time of the discovery and documents any other relevant details about the scene.

Step 5: Continuity To maintain the continuity of evidence, the security guard ensures that the secured area remains undisturbed until law enforcement or investigators arrive. The guard logs all individuals who approach the scene and any interactions that may affect the evidence.

Step 6: Log The security guard creates a detailed log or incident report that includes a description of the vandalism, the actions taken, and the individuals observed in the vicinity. This log will serve as a record of the incident, the evidence collected, and the security guard’s response.

Outcome: In this scenario, the security guard effectively follows the six core steps for containing evidence related to vandalism at a corporate office building. By promptly collecting, securing, preserving, identifying, maintaining continuity, and documenting the evidence, the guard assists law enforcement or investigators in their efforts to identify and apprehend the vandals responsible for the damage. The evidence collected and preserved serves as a critical part of the investigation and potential prosecution.