R V Stinchcombe Case

[Colette]

R v Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on the disclosure of evidence 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 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.

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.

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.

The Supreme Court delineated, in the Stinchcombe case (1991), the legal parameters of a full and complete defence, as guaranteed by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This had the effect of eliminating the legal uncertainty surrounding the disclosure of evidence by the Crown. The Court unanimously affirmed that the Crown had the duty to reveal its evidence to the defence in order that the accused could mount a full and complete defence. This right, which was already recognized by the common law, thereby acquired new vigour, constituting one of the pillars of criminal justice. Rather than being merely voluntary, the disclosure of Crown evidence became obligatory. The duty of disclosure embraced all evidence and all pertinent information. The initial disclosure must take place, moreover, before the accused elects his mode of trial or makes his plea. The absolute refusal to divulge can only be justified by the existence of a right to confidentiality. The discretionary power of the Crown, however, is subject to control by the trial judge.

Government investigators searched the office of the Edmonton Journal, a division of Southam Inc. The investigators wanted to search every file in the building, except for those in the newsroom. They refused to give specific information about why they were there or what sections of the Combines Investigation Act authorized the search. Southam Inc. challenged the act, arguing that it went against the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

The Supreme Court decided that the act violated the fundamental freedoms of religion protected by the Charter. This is because the act forced everyone in Canada to observe the rules of one religion (Christianity), which limited the freedom of religion of those who did not share the same beliefs or practices. This case recognizes that laws with the purpose of obliging Canadians to conform to a specific religious tradition cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

A provision in a provincial Motor Vehicle Act stated that anyone found guilty of driving on a highway without a license or with a suspended license would face an automatic prison sentence. This meant that drivers could be found guilty even if they did not know that their license was suspended. The province of British Columbia asked the Supreme Court to decide whether this clause was consistent with the Charter.

This case was significant because the Court found that the Charter requires laws that can lead to imprisonment or other deprivations of life, liberty or security of the person must be procedurally and substantively fair to the accused person.

David Oakes was charged with the possession of a narcotic under the Narcotics Control Act. The act assumed that those who had narcotics possessed them for the purpose of trafficking. The onus was on the accused to prove that this was not his or her intention.

Oakes argued that the act violated the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Supreme Court agreed and found that the offence violated the presumption of innocence because it required the accused to prove his innocence, rather than the Crown to prove his guilt. In the end, the Court struck down the offence because it was irrational to assume an individual was trafficking narcotics simply because they possessed small amounts of them.

Doctors Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott ran a clinic in Toronto that performed abortions for women who did not have a certificate from an accredited or approved hospital as required by the Criminal Code. The doctors were charged with the intent to provide abortions in violation of the Criminal Code.

Mark Andrews met all the requirements to become a lawyer in British Columbia, but he did not have Canadian citizenship. Because he did not meet the citizenship requirement, he was not accepted. Andrews challenged the provincial law, which prevented him from being a lawyer, arguing that it was discriminatory since it treated non-citizens and Canadian citizens differently.

Jean-Claude Mahe, Paul Dub, and Angeline Martel were three French-speaking parents who argued that French-language education in Edmonton, Alberta was inadequate. They submitted a proposal to the Minister of Education for a new French elementary school that would be administered by a committee of parents within a separate French school board, among other features. The Minister told them that it was a policy of the province to not create any French school jurisdictions. The parents then submitted their proposal to two other school boards, but their proposals were rejected.

James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Alberta who taught his students that Jewish people were evil. He also denied that the Holocaust occurred and said it was invented by Jewish people to gain sympathy. Keegstra was convicted for promoting hatred against an identifiable group based on these statements to his students.

The Keegstra case serves as a reminder that freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited in situations where there is a need to balance competing interests like respect for difference, equality and multiculturalism.

The case was sent back to trial so that Stinchcombe could be fairly tried. This decision had a significant impact on increasing basic fairness in the criminal justice system. As a result of this case, the prosecution must now make all relevant information about a case available to a defendant.

Owen Swain was arrested in 1983 for attacking his wife and children and was charged with assault and aggravated assault. Fortunately, they did not sustain any serious injuries. At his trial, Swain testified that during the incident, he believed he had to protect his wife and children from devils.

Swain moved from jail to a mental health centre, where doctors prescribed him antipsychotic medications, which improved his condition. Swain was granted bail, released into the community and continued to take his medication and see a psychiatrist. Swain remained out of custody until the conclusion of his trial.

As a result of this decision, Parliament modernized Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code to ensure accused with mental disorders are treated fairly by the criminal justice system while continuing to ensure public safety is protected.

Schachter argued that he was the subject of discrimination because the act treated natural parents and adoptive parents differently. The Supreme Court agreed, concluding that the act created unequal benefits, contrary to the equality rights guaranteed by section 15 of the Charter.

The Court used this case to explain what courts could do when one part of a law unjustifiably limits Charter-protected rights and freedoms. When this happens, courts can strike down the part of the law that is inconsistent with the Charter, among other remedies. In some circumstances, courts can also read words into the law to make it consistent with the Charter.

Freedom of expression and the press are necessary features to a free and democratic society. Any measures that ban media from publishing information of interest restricts these freedoms and must be justified as reasonable and proportionate to the reason for the ban.

Susan Eldridge, John Warren, and Linda Warren were born deaf. They preferred to communicate through sign language. While provincial law provided funding for medically required services, no funding was available for sign language interpreters. They argued that this infringed their equality rights.

The Supreme Court agreed, concluding that their equality rights were infringed because they were denied the equal benefit of access to medical care based on their disability. Without sign language interpreters, people who are deaf would not be able to effectively communicate with their doctors, which increases the risk of misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment.

The case shows that equality does not necessarily mean identical treatment for everybody. In certain cases, disadvantaged groups may need more services or programs. Governments, employers and service providers need to consider the need to eliminate barriers to allow for the full participation of persons with disabilities in Canadian society.

c80f0f1006