''R v Stinchcombe'',
991
Year 991 (Roman numerals, CMXCI) was a common year starting on Thursday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar.
Events
* March 1: In Rouen, Pope John XV ratifies the first Peace and Truce of God, Truce of God, between ...
3 S.C.R. 326 is a landmark
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; french: Cour suprême du Canada, CSC) is the Supreme court, highest court in the Court system of Canada, judicial system of Canada. It comprises List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, nine justices, wh ...
decision on the disclosure of
evidence
Evidence for a proposition is what supports this proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the supported proposition is true. What role evidence plays and how it is conceived varies from field to field.
In epistemology, evidenc ...
in a trial and is considered by most to be one of the most significant criminal law cases of the decade. The Court found that
the Crown
The Crown is the state in all its aspects within the jurisprudence of the Commonwealth realms and their subdivisions (such as the Crown Dependencies, overseas territories, provinces, or states). Legally ill-defined, the term has different ...
had a duty to provide the defence with all evidence that could possibly be relevant to the case, regardless of whether the Crown plans to call that evidence at trial or not, or whether it helps or hurts the Crown's case. This case put to rest the long-standing issue of whether the Crown could purposely deny the defence evidence that the Crown found would be harmful to their case.
Background
William Stinchcombe, a lawyer, was charged with theft and fraud. One of the Crown's witnesses, a former secretary of Stinchcombe's, had given evidence at the preliminary inquiry that supported the defence's position. Later a statement was taken from her by an RCMP officer, however, at 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. The judge refused to provide it and the accused was eventually convicted.
Reasons of the court
Justice Sopinka, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the judge was wrong in refusing the application by the defence, as the Crown was under a duty to disclose all evidence.
Crown has a duty to disclose but crown only has a duty to disclose critical evidence that they believe will assist the defence. If they believe it will not help the case the crown are not obligated to disclose as CJ Mclachlin stated in R v Kennedy.
''"The Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant information to the defence. The fruits of the investigation which are in its possession are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done."''
The duty, wrote Sopinka, is derived from the right of an accused to make full answer and defence which has been entrenched under
section 7 of the Charter. This duty, however, is still subject to rules of
privilege.
See also
*
List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Lamer Court)
This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada from appointment of Antonio Lamer as Chief Justice of Canada to his retirement. 19901994
19951999
See also
* List of notable Canadian Courts of Appeals cases ...
External links
*
{{DEFAULTSORT:Stinchcombe
Supreme Court of Canada cases
1991 in Canadian case law
Canadian evidence case law
Canadian criminal procedure case law