R. v. Stinchcombe (1991), 130 N.R. 277 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
William B. Stinchcombe (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(21904)
Indexed As: R. v. Stinchcombe
Supreme Court of Canada
La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,
Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and
Iacobucci, JJ.
November 7, 1991.
Summary:
The accused was charged with 13 counts of criminal breach of trust, 13 counts of theft and one count of fraud, contrary to ss. 296, 294(a) and 338(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (1970). A witness who gave evidence at the preliminary inquiry favourable to the accused was interviewed by the Crown. The Crown decided not to call this witness and refused to produce statements given by the witness in the interview. The trial judge, in convicting the accused, refused to order the Crown to disclose the statements. The accused appealed.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, without written reasons, dismissed the appeal. The accused applied for and was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of whether the statements should have been produced.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, ordered production of the statements and directed a new trial.
Criminal Law – Topic 128
Rights of accused – Right to make full answer and defence – [See both
Criminal Law – Topic 4505
].
Criminal Law – Topic 4505
Procedure – Trial – Special duties of Crown – Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial – The accused lawyer was charged with multiple counts of criminal breach of trust and theft – A witness who gave evidence favourable to the accused at the preliminary inquiry was interviewed by the Crown – The Crown decided not to call the witness and refused to produce statements obtained at the interview – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown had a duty to disclose the statements; failure to disclose impeded the accused’s right to make full answer and defence.
Criminal Law – Topic 4505
Procedure – Trial – Special duties of Crown – Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Crown had a duty to disclose all relevant information in its possession – Failure to disclose impeded the accused’s right to make full answer and defence – The absolute withholding of relevant information was only justified on the ground of legal privilege – The court discussed the general principles governing the Crown’s duty, including the Crown’s discretion, exceptions and the mechanics of review by the courts – The court stated that factors applicable to indictable offences may not equally apply to summary conviction offences – Initial disclosure should occur before the accused elects mode of trial or pleads – The Crown must disclose all relevant information, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, including statements of persons not proposed as Crown witnesses.
Cases Noticed:
Cunliffe v. Law Society of British Columbia (1984), 40 C.R.(3d) 67 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].
Savion v. The Queen (1980), 13 C.R.(3d) 259 (Ont. C.A), refd to. [para. 9].
R. v. Bourget (1987), 54 Sask.R. 178; 56 C.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].
Boucher v. The Queen, [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 11].
Marks v. Beyfus (1890), 25 Q.B.D. 494 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 16].
Bisaillon v. Keable et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; 51 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 16].
Solicitor General of Canada et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry (Health Records in Ontario) et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 494; 38 N.R. 588, refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Dersch et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1505; 116 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 17].
Lemay v. The King, [1952] 1 S.C.R. 232, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. M.H.C. (1988), 46 C.C.C.(3d) 142 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. M.H.C. (1991), 123 N.R. 63 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Caccamo, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 786; 4 N.R. 133, refd to. [para. 24].
Piché v. The Queen, [1971] S.C.R. 23, refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. Rothman, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640; 35 N.R. 485, refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. McInroy and Rouse, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 588; 23 N.R. 589, refd to. [para. 38].
R. v. Mannion, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 272; 69 N.R. 189; 75 A.R. 16, refd to. [para. 38].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7.
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 294(a), sect. 296, sect. 338(1)(a) [para. 1].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 334(a), sect. 336, sect. 380(1)(a) [para. 1]; sect. 482 [para. 25]; sect. 603 [para. 9].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Canada, Law Reform Commission, Criminal Prosecution: Discovery (1974), pp. 29-31 [para. 10]; 41 [para. 30].
Canada, Law Reform Commission, Disclosure by the Prosecution (1984), pp. 6-9 [para. 13]; 13-15 [para. 10]; 27-28 [para. 30].
Canada, Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution (1989), vol. 1, p. 238 [para. 17]; vol. 2, pp. 242-244 [para. 10].
Marshall Commission Report – see Canada, Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution.
Ontario, Bench and Bar Council, Report of the Special Committee on Preliminary Hearings (1982), pp. 12-15 [para. 14].
Counsel:
William Code, Q.C., and John Phillips, for the appellant;
D. McDonald, Q.C., and B. Fraser, Q.C., for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Code Hunter, Calgary, Alberta, for the appellant;
Attorney General of Alberta, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on May 2, 1991, before La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On November 7, 1991, Sopinka, J., delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in both official languages.
