Obtaining a New Trial on the Basis of Non-Disclosure
The right to full
disclosure is just one component of the right to make full answer and defence. It
does not follow that solely because the appellant’s right to full disclosure
was breached, his/her Charter right to make full answer and defence was
also compromised.
To obtain a new trial on the basis of
non-disclosure, the appellant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that
there is a reasonable possibility that the non-disclosure affected either
(1) the outcome of the
trial, or
(2) the overall fairness
of the trial process.
STEP ONE Establish
Breach of the Right to Disclosure
Where evidence proposed
for admission on appeal has to do with information that was not disclosed prior
to trial, an appellant must first establish that the undisclosed information
meets the Stinchcombe standard and thus amounts to a breach of the
appellant’s constitutional right to disclosure.
R.
v. Dixon, 1998 CanLII 805 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R.
244, at para. 22; R.
v. Taillefer; R. v. Duguay, 2003 SCC 70 (CanLII), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 307,
at para. 61; T.S., 2012 ONCA 289 (CanLII, at para. 123.
The appellant must next
establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the disclosure failure impaired
the appellant’s right to make full answer and defence.
Dixon, at para. 33; T.S., at para. 124.
STEP TWO Establish
Breach of the Right to Full Answer and Defence
Trial Outcome
Here the court inquires whether
there is a reasonable possibility that the undisclosed evidence, when considered
in the context of the trial as a whole, could have impacted on the verdict. A
new trial should be ordered where it is so established.
Taillefer, at para. 82; Dixon, at para. 36.
Trial Fairness
Here the court inquires
whether there is a reasonable possibility that the undisclosed evidence would
have affected the defence’s opportunity to pursue meaningful lines of inquiry
with witnesses or gather additional evidence that would have been available but
for the non-disclosure.
Dixon, at paras. 34,36; R.
v. M.G.T., 2017 ONCA 736 (CanLII), at para. 152; R. v. Iles, 2008 SCC 57 (CanLII), at para. 65; Taillefer, at
paras. 83-84.
For instance--
·
Where an undisclosed
statement of a witness could reasonably have been used to impeach the
credibility of a prosecution witness;
·
Where the
prosecution fails to disclose to the defence that there is a witness who could
have led to the timely discovery of other witnesses who were useful to the
defence.
An important factor in
considering the impact of a disclosure failure on the overall fairness of the
trial process is the diligence of defence counsel in pursuing disclosure from
the Crown. A lack of due diligence in pursuing disclosure is a significant factor
in determining whether the Crown’s non-disclosure affected the overall fairness
of the trial process.
Dixon, at para. 37; R.
v. M.G.T., at para. 15.
Where defence counsel knew
or ought to have known of a disclosure failure or deficiency on the basis of
other disclosures, yet remained passive as a result of a tactical decision or
lack of due diligence, the court will have difficultly in acceding to the submission that the
disclosure default affected the overall fairness of the trial.
Dixon, at para. 38; R. v. McAnespie, 1993 CanLII 50 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R.
501, at pp. 502-503.
Stuart
O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca
Comments
Post a Comment