R. v. Stinchcombe
Supreme Court Judgements
[1999] 3 SCR 326 SCC
Tiffany Ng, Juanita Kwok
Steps being taken to improve disclosure management in various Canadian jurisdictions include:
- Information management training, including working sessions and seminars for investigators and prosecutors
- The development and sharing of best practices
- The development of protocols for disclosure management
- Closer direct cooperation between investigators and prosecutors, including assigning Crown
counsel to provide advice on disclosure issues during investigations.
What happened?
Issue:
Was the Crown under an obligation to disclose the contents to the defence?
- William Stinchcombe was charged with theft and fraud
- His former secretary, one of the Crown's witnesses’, gave evidence at the preliminary inquiry supporting the defence’s position
- A statement was taken from her by an RCMP officer
- At the trial the defence was denied access to the contents of the statement
- When the Crown decided not to use the statement the defence made a request for it to the judge who refused to provide it
- The accused was eventually convicted
Pros vs Cons
Three main purposes of disclosure:
- to ensure that the accused knows the case to be met, and is able to make full answer and defence
- to encourage the resolution of facts in issue including, where appropriate, the entering of guilty pleas at an early stage in the proceedings
- disclosure is not a matter just for the Crown in preparing for trial, it is also a key concern for police during an investigation.
- Crown Attorneys are expected to exercise good judgment and consult with Senior Crown Attorneys to discuss what needs to be disclosed.
- the Crown’s expected disclosure obligation can create significant challenges. Having proper disclosure requires organizing huge quantities of information within the justice system.
- the challenges involved in managing the volume of information is highlighted most clearly in the larger and more complex cases. Issues related to the sensitivity of information and the need to prevent misuse can be a concern regardless of the size of the case.
Impact on Canadian Law and Society
Supreme Court Response
Opinion on the Result
- The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused in criminal cases has a constitutional right to full and complete disclosure of the Crown's case
- encompasses more than just the information which will be used by the Crown as part of its case
- The Crown is obliged to disclose all information in its possession which is relevant, or at least not clearly irrelevant, and which is not subject to privilege
- The Crown retains discretion to determine relevance and withhold privileged information, including discretion with respect to the timing and manner of disclosure in certain circumstances
- SCC held that the Crown’s failure to disclose was a violation of Stinchcombe’s right to make full answer and defence
- A new trial was ordered where the defence would receive the tape and written statement
- At the second trial, the Crown revealed that it had lost the original tape and written statement
- the trial judge stayed the proceeding, preventing the trial from continuing
- The Crown appealed the stay all the way up to the SCC
- SCC ruled disclosure of the original evidence was not necessary and that the trial could proceed using copies of the evidence
- At the third trial, the Crown did not call any evidence and Stinchcombe was acquitted of all the charges
We favour the decisions that Supreme Court of Canada has made in regards to the outcome of R. v. Stinchcombe. By allowing the concern for victims to override an individual's right to defend himself to a criminal charge would be a grave injustice.
- Since the Charter is part of the Constitution, laws that limit Charter rights may be invalid. The right of a person to make “full answer and defence” is protected under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a principle of fundamental justice.
- The belief is that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
- Here, the SCC ruled that in order to be able to make full answer and defence, an accused must be given all relevant information in relation to the investigation of the accused in the Crown’s possession, subject to the Crown’s discretion.