The criminal justice system can be daunting, but you don’t need to go through it alone. Our Criminal lawyers are here to guide you every step of the way.
Contact Our Firm
In cases involving allegations of section 715.1 in sexual assault cases against children or vulnerable persons, it’s common for the Crown to rely on videotaped police interviews as part of the evidence at trial. These statements are often submitted under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code, which allows prior recorded testimony from a complainant, typically a child, to be admitted into evidence.
While the purpose of section 715.1 in sexual assault cases is to reduce the stress of testifying and preserve the accuracy of initial disclosures, its use can create significant legal issues, particularly when the entire police interview is admitted without proper scrutiny. That’s exactly the issue in R. v. T.A., 2025 ONCA 197, a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that underscores the importance of protecting the fairness of the trial for the accused.
In R. v. T.A., 2025 ONCA 197, the accused was convicted of sexual offences against a child complainant. The police had conducted a recorded interview with the child, which was admitted under s. 715.1. However, the Crown did not clearly delineate which parts of the interview were intended to be admitted, and the trial judge allowed the entire recording, including comments that were inadmissible hearsay, prejudicial character evidence, and speculative statements about the accused’s guilt.
The Court of Appeal found that this approach was inappropriate and contributed to an unfair trial. Section 715.1 is not a free pass to introduce every word spoken in a police interview. Rather, the trial judge has an obligation to ensure that only admissible, relevant, and fair content is played to the jury. That includes redacting any material that is prejudicial, lacks probative value, or would be excluded under ordinary evidentiary rules.
This case highlights a broader concern: when judges and counsel fail to vet prior recorded statements properly, they risk admitting evidence that unfairly bolsters the Crown’s case or undermines the presumption of innocence. Statements that speculate on the accused’s character, discuss unrelated bad acts, or present hearsay from third parties can be highly prejudicial, even if they come from a child complainant.
For those accused of sexual offences involving minors, it is crucial to understand how s. 715.1 operates and to challenge its misuse. That means demanding judicial scrutiny of what the Crown intends to introduce, applying to exclude improper portions, and cross-examining witnesses on the context and content of those statements.
At Neuberger & Partners, we’ve represented countless clients in cases involving complex evidentiary issues like this. We know how to dissect police interviews, identify prejudicial content, and push back when a recording threatens to tip the scales of justice.
In emotionally charged cases, fairness and due process must remain at the centre of the trial. Section 715.1 was never meant to shortcut the rules of evidence, and we’ll make sure it doesn’t.
Facing false allegations and charges involving a child complainant or recorded police interviews? Contact Neuberger & Partners at 416-364-3111 to schedule a consultation.
