R v Stinchcombe
In R v Stinchcombe, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a unanimous decision, held that the
Crown is under a duty to disclose to the defence all evidence that could possibly be relevant
to the case, regardless of whether the Crown plans to call that evidence at trial, or whether it
helps or hurts the Crown’s case. The court ruled that the Crown duty to disclose derives from
the right of an accused to make full answer and defence, which has been entrenched as a
principle of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter.
Facts:
·A lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft, and fraud.
·His former secretary was a Crown witness at the preliminary inquiry, where she gave
favourable evidence for the defence.
·After the preliminary inquiry, but prior to the trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer
and a tape-recorded statement was taken.
·During the trial, she was interviewed again by a police officer, and a written statement was
taken.
·Defence counsel was informed of the existence but not the content of the statements.
·His requests for disclosure were refused.
·The defence lawyer learned that the Crown was not going to call that witness to the stand
during trial.
·Counsel sought an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose contents of the
statements.
Judicial History:
·1) Trial judge dismissed the application; accused was convicted of breach of trust and fraud;
·2) CA affirmed the convictions without giving reasons.
Issue: Was the Crown under an obligation to disclose the contents to the defence?
Analysis:
·The Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant information to the defence.
·The Crown can’t use its investigation for securing a conviction. It is the property of the
public to be used to ensure that justice is done.
·Discretion must be exercised with respect to the timing and relevance of information.
·The Crown’s discretion is reviewable by the judge, who should be guided by the general
principle that information should not be withheld if there is a reasonable possibility that this
will impair the right of the accused to make full answer and defence.
·Counsel for the accused must bring any failure of the Crown to comply with its duty to
disclose to the trial judge ASAP, so that the judge can remedy any prejudice, and avoid a new
trial.
·Initial disclosure should occur before the accused is called upon to elect the mode of trial or
plead.
·Crown counsel was not justified in refusing disclosure here on the ground that the witness
was not worthy of credit:
owhether the witness is credible is for the trial judge to determine after hearing the evidence.
Holding: There should be a new trial.
Ratio: Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant information (exculpatory or
inculpatory) to the defence. But Crown has the discretion with respect to timing and
relevance of information.