Video Testimony in Criminal Trials: What R v Rajkaran Means for the Accused

A courtroom is built on presence. This includes the weight of testimony delivered in person, the ability to look a witness in the eye, and the immediacy of cross-examination. But what happens when a witness is hundreds of kilometres away, and the Crown wants to connect them through a screen?

A 2026 Manitoba Provincial Court decision, R v Rajkaran, 2026 MBPC 6, tackled exactly that question, and the answer it delivered carries important lessons for anyone facing criminal charges in Canada. The court made clear that convenience does not override fairness, and that the accused’s right to a proper trial must always be taken seriously.

01 / BackgroundWhat Happened in Court?

The case involved a sexual assault charge in which the complainant, the main witness for the Crown, had relocated to Toronto long before the trial began. Because she was no longer living near the Manitoba courthouse, Crown counsel sought permission to have her testify remotely using a video conferencing platform rather than requiring her to attend in person.

In support of the request, the Crown noted that cross-provincial travel would be both expensive and inconvenient. There was also a significant personal factor: the complainant had recently given birth and was caring for a two-month-old infant, making travel even more burdensome.

Given that this was a sexual assault proceeding where the witness’s credibility was central to the entire case, the stakes were high for both sides.

02 / The IssueThe Central Issue at Trial

At its core, the dispute came down to a single question: Is it appropriate for this witness to testify by video rather than appearing in person?

The Crown’s position was straightforward; video testimony would reduce costs, lessen the inconvenience on the witness, and still allow the court to properly observe and assess her credibility through a screen.

The defence pushed back firmly. Their objections covered several areas:

These were not trivial procedural objections since they went to the heart of whether the accused could receive a genuinely fair trial.

03 / The LawSection 714.1 of the Criminal Code

The legal authority for video testimony in Canadian criminal proceedings comes from Section 714.1 of the Criminal Code. It gives a judge the discretion to permit a witness outside Canada, or by extension, far from the courthouse, to testify by video link. But this is a discretion to be exercised carefully, not a rubber stamp.

When weighing such a request, the court must consider a range of factors, including:

Critically, the law does not treat video testimony as an equivalent substitute for in-person testimony — it treats it as an exception. The default remains that witnesses should testify in the same room as the accused, the defence, and the trier of fact.

This matters especially in criminal trials because cross-examination — the process by which defence counsel challenges a witness’s account — is one of the most powerful tools available to the accused. Any format that hampers that process deserves serious scrutiny.

04 / The AnalysisHow the Court Approached the Application

The presiding Justice began from a clear premise: in-person testimony is the rule, and video is the exception. The burden falls on whoever is seeking the exception to justify why the usual approach should not apply.

Looking at the evidence before it, the court identified several critical gaps in the Crown’s application.

Problem #1: Unsubstantiated Cost Claims

The Crown characterized the anticipated travel costs as “high” but provided no supporting figures (i.e. no estimates, no receipts), no breakdown of what the travel would actually involve or who would bear the expense. The court found that vague references to cost, without any evidentiary foundation, were simply not enough to tip the balance.

Merely invoking the spectre of ‘high costs’ without any detail as to what the costs might be and who will be incurring them is insufficient. — Rajkaran, 2026 MBPC 6, para 31

Problem #2: Insufficient Evidence of Hardship

While the court acknowledged that travelling with an infant is genuinely more difficult, acknowledging difficulty is not the same as proving that travel is unworkable or unreasonably burdensome. No evidence was put forward to show that the witness had exhausted alternatives or that attendance was truly impractical.

Problem #3: Unknown Technology Setup

Perhaps most telling was the lack of detail about where and how the witness would testify. Crown counsel mentioned a local police station as a possible location but provided no information about the technology in place, the room setup, or how the equipment would function during the proceeding.

Without more precise information about the location and technology the Court is unable to balance this factor with the Respondent’s concerns. — Rajkaran, 2026 MBPC 6, para 29

This was significant because the adequacy of the technology directly affects the quality of cross-examination. If the defence cannot see the witness clearly, cannot observe her reactions, or faces communication delays, the accused’s right to challenge the evidence is diminished.

05 / The OutcomeApplication Dismissed

Given the shortcomings in the Crown’s evidence, the court refused the application. The complainant would be required to appear and testify in person at the trial in Manitoba.

This outcome reinforces a fundamental principle of Canadian criminal law: procedural shortcuts that could compromise fairness to the accused are not to be taken lightly, regardless of how convenient they might seem for other parties.

06 / Why It MattersWhat This Decision Means If You Are Facing Charges

The Rajkaran decision is a reminder that the rules governing how a criminal trial is conducted exist to protect everyone, especially the accused. Those rules are not mere formalities. They are the architecture of a fair trial.

Here is why this matters in a practical sense:

• Cross-examination is a cornerstone of your defence. Any format that weakens the defence’s ability to challenge a key witness, whether through video lag, unclear visuals, or the added complexity of interpreters, can affect the outcome of your case.
• The Crown must do more than state conclusions. Courts require evidence, not assertions. If the Crown cuts corners in its procedural applications, a skilled defence lawyer will hold them to account.
• Your right to a fair trial is not negotiable. Courts have affirmed time and again that convenience for one party cannot come at the expense of fundamental fairness for the accused.

Whether you are dealing with a charge in Alberta, Manitoba, or anywhere else in Canada, decisions like Rajkaran shape the procedural landscape of your case. Having a lawyer who understands and actively enforces these rights can make a meaningful difference.