R. v. La (H.K.) (1997), 200 A.R. 81 (SCC);
146 W.A.C. 81
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [1997] N.R. TBEd. JN.028
Hung Duc Vu (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(25389)
Indexed As: R. v. La (H.K.) et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-
Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,
McLachlin, Iacobucci and
Major, JJ.
June 26, 1997.
Summary:
Three accused were charged with sexual assault. The trial judge granted a stay of proceedings following the failure of the Crown to produce a tape recorded interview with one of the Crown witnesses. The tape had been inadvertently lost. The Crown appealed.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 181 A.R. 192; 116 W.A.C. 192, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. There was no failure to disclose where the Crown disclosed all that it had in its possession or control. One of the accused (Vu) appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Civil Rights – Topic 3133
Trials – Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings – Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings – Right of accused to make full answer and defence – [See first
Criminal Law – Topic 4505
].
Civil Rights – Topic 8374
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of rights – Remedies – Stay of proceedings – [See first
Criminal Law – Topic 4505
].
Civil Rights – Topic 8547
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Interpretation – Particular words and phrases – Principles of fundamental justice – [See first
Criminal Law – Topic 4505
].
Criminal Law – Topic 253
Abuse of process – What constitutes – [See first
Criminal Law – Topic 4505
].
Criminal Law – Topic 4505
Procedure – Trial – Special duties of Crown – Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the effect of the innocent inadvertent loss of evidence on the Crown’s duty to disclose – The duty to disclose obligated the Crown to preserve relevant evidence – There was no breach of the duty to disclose if the Crown’s explanation satisfied the trial judge that evidence was not destroyed or lost owing to unacceptable negligence – The Crown could only disclose what it possessed – Lost evidence did not constitute nondisclosure if police conduct was reasonable – As the relevance of the evidence increased, so did the degree of care respecting preservation – If an explanation was unacceptable, the failure to disclose, by itself, breached the principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) – The court also discussed when nondisclosure constituted an abuse of process and when a stay of proceedings was the appropriate remedy for nondisclosure – Where the Crown met its disclosure obligation, in order to establish a s. 7 breach on the ground of lost evidence, the accused must establish actual prejudice to the right to make full answer and defence – L’Heureux-Dubé, J. (La Forest, Gonthier and McLachlin, concurring), although concurring in the result, stated that the Crown’s duty to disclose was not a principle of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter – See paragraphs 15 to 27.
Criminal Law – Topic 4505
Procedure – Trial – Special duties of Crown – Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial – Police picked up a 13 year old runaway girl and quickly believed she was part of a prostitution ring – Police taped a 45 minute initial conversation with the girl (respecting application for secure treatment order, not prostitution investigation) – Several days later, the girl and two others gave detailed written statements and taped statements – The police subsequently charged the three accused with sexual assault – The Crown disclosed all written statements, taped interviews and police notes available – When the Crown discovered that the initial taped interview with the girl was inadvertently lost, the accused were so advised – There was no evidence as to discrepancies between the missing tape and the written statement – The trial judge granted the accused a stay of proceedings on the ground of the Crown’s failure to disclose – The Alberta Court of Appeal set aside the stay – There was no failure to disclose, where the Crown disclosed all that was in its possession or control – The inadvertent loss of a statement did not automatically lead to a stay – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision – See paragraphs 1 to 33.
Police – Topic 2213
Duties – General duties – Recording of complaints – [See second
Criminal Law – Topic 4505
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Stinchcombe (1994), 149 A.R. 167; 63 W.A.C. 167; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 557 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [paras. 15, 35].
R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 103 D.L.R.(4th) 678; 21 C.R.(4th) 186; 15 C.R.R.(2d) 193; 45 M.V.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 754; 178 N.R. 157; 162 A.R. 269; 83 W.A.C. 269, refd to. [paras. 17, 55].
R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 225, refd to. [paras. 18, 55].
R. v. O’Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 153; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 21, 40].
R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81, dist. [paras. 22, 41].
R. v. D.J.B. (1993), 16 C.R.R.(2d) 381 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Andrew (S.) (1992), 60 O.A.C. 324 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. François (L.) (1993), 65 O.A.C. 306 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Kenny (D.) (1991), 92 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 318; 287 A.P.R. 318 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Adams (J.R.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 707; 190 N.R. 161; 178 A.R. 161; 110 W.A.C. 161; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 262, refd to. [para. 27].
R. v. Calder (M.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 660; 194 N.R. 321; 90 O.A.C. 18; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 46 C.R.(4th) 133, refd to. [para. 27].
R. v. M.H.C., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 763; 123 N.R. 63; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 38].
R. v. Cook (1997), 210 N.R. 197 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 39].
R. v. Douglas (E.) et al. (1991), 168 N.R. 2; 71 O.A.C. 74; 5 O.R.(3d) 29 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. Douglas (E.) et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 893; 168 N.R. 1; 71 O.A.C. 3, affd. (1991), 168 N.R. 2; 71 O.A.C. 74; 5 O.R.(3d) 29 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. L.A.T. (1993), 64 O.A.C. 380; 14 O.R.(3d) 378 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. Peterson (B.) (1996), 89 O.A.C. 60; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 64 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. T.B. (1994), 23 C.R.R.(2d) 355 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. Richer (R.J.) (1993), 141 A.R. 116; 46 W.A.C. 116; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), affd. [1994] 2 S.C.R. 486; 168 N.R. 198; 155 A.R. 210; 73 W.A.C. 210, refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. Durette et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469; 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 45].
R. v. Farinacci – see R. v. Durette et al.
R. v. Jack (B.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 310; 168 N.R. 13; 95 Man.R.(2d) 158; 70 W.A.C. 158; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 363, refd to. [para. 45].
R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161; 36 C.R.(4th) 1; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 45].
R. v. Khela (S.S.) and Dhillon (K.S.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 201; 188 N.R. 355, refd to. [para. 46].
R. v. Biscette (S.) (1995), 169 A.R. 81; 97 W.A.C. 81; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 326 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 3 S.C.R. 599; 203 N.R. 244; 187 A.R. 392; 127 W.A.C. 392, refd to. [para. 47].
R. v. Curragh Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 537; 209 N.R. 252; 159 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 468 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. Burlingham (T.W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206; 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 7; 38 C.R.(4th) 265; 28 C.R.R.(2d) 244, refd to. [para. 65].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 19].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Hendel, Ursula, and Sankoff, Peter, R. v. Edwards: When Two Wrongs Might Just Make a Right (1996), 45 C.R.(4th) 330, p. 334 [para. 65].
Martin Committee Report – see Ontario, Attorney General, Report of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions.
Mitchell, Graeme G., Abuse of Process and the Crown’s Disclosure Obligation (1996), 44 C.R.(4th) 130, p. 136 [para. 65].
Ontario, Attorney General, Report of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions (Martin Committee Report)(August 1993), generally [para. 39].
Stuesser, Lee, Abuse of Process: The Need to Reconsider (1994), 29 C.R.(4th) 92, p. 103 [para. 65].
Young, Alan, Adversarial Justice and the Charter of Rights: Stunting the Growth of the “Living Tree” (1997), 39 Crim. L.Q. 406, generally [para. 38].
Counsel:
Balfour Q.H. Der and Robert J. Batting, for the appellant;
Elizabeth A. Hughes, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Batting, Der, Calgary, Alberta, for the appellant;
Attorney General for Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on March 13, 1997, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On June 26, 1997, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:
Sopinka, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 33;
L’Heureux-Dubé, J. (La Forest, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 34 to 68.
