Canadian Criminal Evidence/Credibility/Post-Offence Conduct

General Principles
Post offence conduct is a form of circumstantial evidence. It is admissible based on relevance. The utility depends on what inferences can be fairly drawn from the circumstances in its entirety.

It is considered a “legal term of art” that refers “only [to] conduct which is probative of guilt.” This is more apparent from the previous term used of "consciousness of guilt".

Post-offence conduct is frequently seen as:
 * 1) flight from the scene of the crime or the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed;
 * 2) attempts to resist arrest;
 * 3) failure to appear at trial; and
 * 4) acts of concealment such as lying, assuming a false name, changing one's appearance, and hiding or disposing of evidence.

This inference is case-specific based on factors such as:
 * 1) the nature of the conduct;
 * 2) the facts sought to be inferred from the conduct;
 * 3) the positions of the parties; and
 * 4) the totality of the evidence.

Post-offence conduct cannot be used to infer a degree of culpability, but can be used to attack credibility.

An exculpatory statement that has been discredited can only be used to make to an adverse inference against the accused where there is independent evidence of fabrication. The key is to establish an intent to deceive to support an inference of consciousness of guilt.

The proof of fabrication can be based on the circumstances of the statement. This includes compelling inconsistencies or contradictory statements suggesting concoction.

Such statements should be treated in the same manner as alibis.

Proof of the accused's flight from a scene permits an inference that an offence occurred. It does not permit the inference, without more, that it was a specific offence charged.