Canadians, help me understand a legal thing

[ritaxis]

This is because of a story I am reading. In the story a minor boy shot and killed a man who was threatening another minor boy. They are cousins, and they live together: the first boy's parents are the guardians of the second boy. The lawyer for the boy who did the shooting tells him that since his cousin is a witness to the event they will be kept separate and incommunicado until the trial is over in about six months.

I don't believe this for a moment. It has, in fact, ruined the story for me.

Does Canada in fact have such a law that the witness for the defense is to be removed from all contact with the accused until; the trial is over?

I would have thought that they would keep them from talking to each other until they'd made their first statements, at the most.

Comments

[genlisae.livejournal.com]

This would be a new thing in my experience, which is admittedly not much. I don't often even read a newspaper.

I did find a few instances where various parties sign a written agreement to (c) abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, with (identification of victim, witness or other person) or from going to (name or description of place) except in accordance with the following conditions: (as the peace officer or other person designated specifies); (Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) found at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-425.html) which is decidedly not the same as being "kept separate" which implies some form of physical confinement.

Was there a form of confinement/monitoring etc? Perhaps if it was believed the accused would pose a threat to the witness the witness would fall under the Witness Protection Act. If the witness themselves was being confined, that is only possible for up to 30 days without the witness appearing before a judge. Again, I don't have a huge amount of knowledge here, just a lot of past research and a bit more looking for this specifically.

The way you have explained it sounds like a lot of artistic license being taken to me. Perhaps someone else on your f-list has more knowledge of Canadian law or feels like pouring through the Criminal Code (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/index.html) and can give you a more decisive answer.

[ritaxis.livejournal.com]

It's a serial, so the installment ended with this announcement. I don't know how they're going to keep two minor boys who have the same legal parents separate from each other. I imagine foster care for one or the other boy.

The boys agree (and the story shows)that the shooting took place as the one boy was being harmed by the person who was shot. It's the defense lawyer who tells the boy who did the shooting that this is going to happen to protect the integrity of the other boy's testimony, not to protect the other boy. I really think it's stupid.