The other main type of immunity is known as use and immunity of use derived. This is done with more restrictions and is therefore more often offered by prosecutors. The use and derivative use of immunity protects the witness from the prosecution`s use of their statements or any evidence found of their statements against them. In essence, this results in the same result, as if the witness had invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and had not testified at all. It allows the Crown to lay charges on the basis of the same crime against the witness, as long as the charge is entirely based on independent evidence from another source. Whether this evidence is sufficient to bring the witness to justice without using their evidence may be left to a judge or jury to decide. The information provider must be honest about its involvement in criminal activity. Footnote 11 During a meeting with the information provider in accordance with possible immunity, the Crown prosecutor must ask the person if: a) a) has been convicted of a criminal offence; (b) are charged with a criminal offence; and (c) is knowingly the subject of a criminal investigation. If the person testifies later, the Crown attorney must judge the person`s full criminal record. Footnote 12 Crown Counsel must also be satisfied that the information provider has fully and openly disclosed any information that may relate to the activity in question or jeopardize the credibility of the information provider. This disclosure may relate to criminal activity in Canada or criminal activity abroad over which the DPP has no criminal jurisdiction.
The information provider must be informed that the DPP cannot hire other prosecutors. Investigative assistance agreements must be approved by Crown Counsel in agreement with its Chief Federal Attorney (GFP) or the Assistant PCP. Footnote 6 The PCP should keep a copy of these agreements. 5.1 It is essential, in the context of this agreement, that [name] of the investigating authority possesses or controls all information and documents that [name] know and which are fully, simple and truthfully disclosed with respect to the purpose of the investigation; do so in the form and manner necessary in this agreement; Maintain the confidence imposed by this agreement; and testify honestly and whether it is mandatory with respect to the purpose of the investigation. The failure or refusal to do any of these things, or a refusal or failure to do so to the extent or wisdom required by this agreement, constitutes a violation of this agreement. This form of immunity agreement is called “immunity from use.” It is somewhat different from the immunity agreements discussed elsewhere in this directive, since it focuses on the use of the information provided and not on acts that are not prosecuted. It is appropriate for Crown`s advisor to speak with the investigating authorities and sign “formal investigative assistance agreements” binding on the DPP. A sample is found in Appendix “C.” This is not to say that the investigating authorities do not have the power to exercise some form of immunity by deciding not to charge. 3.2.1 In a criminal proceeding prosecuted by or on behalf of the Director of The Crown and in which [Name] is charged as a person being prosecuted, no statement made by [Name] during one or more basic interviews under the agreement is used as evidence against [name]. , a complex process involving several offices with different mandates.