How have the principals of the Rules of Civil Procedure apply to evidence that contradicts the evidence given by the complainants in their cross-examinations?

9. These principals can now be applied to the situation at hand. The evidence which is the subject of controversy in this ruling is evidence of details of conversations that do not contradict any of the evidence given by the complainants per se. Instead, it is evidence of aspects of conversa­tions in addition to evidence about those conversations that had been given by the complainants either in their examination or cross-examinations. In other words, if the complainants testified about five facts being discussed in a conversation, this controversial evidence would be with regard to a sixth or seventh detail being added to that conversation. Such details had not be suggested to the complainants during their examination-in-chief. The question now becomes whether any of those details or that evidence would offend the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

10. The rule in Browne v. Dunn makes it clear that any evidence that is intended to be used and that could be used to impeach the credibility of a witness that had not been brought to the par­ticular attention of that witness when s/he testified should not be introduced by opposing counsel. But the rule does not apply to situations where the evidence is introduced for purposes other than impeaching credibility.

11. Hence, I indicated to the parties that I would apply the rule of Browne v. Dunn very strictly to any evidence intended to be used or that could be used to impeach the credibility of the complainants and I would require that particular notice had been given to the complainants in cross-examination of any items that could impeach the credibility of the complainants. Absent such particular notice being given to them when they testified, the respondents would be precluded for introducing any such evidence or relying upon any in later argument.

12. On the other hand, if the evidence the respondents sought to introduce was tendered simply to add details of conversations and was not intended or capable of raising any adverse impli­cations regarding the credibility of the complainants with regard to those details, then the evidence is admissible evidence and does not offend the rule in Browne v. Dunn. The introduction of evi­dence in this way may affect what weight it will be given at the end of the day, but it will not affect the admissibility of the evidence. It then follows that if the complainants feel it desirable to rebut any of that evidence, they are free to do so in reply.