Police Duty to Collect Evidence

From Canadian Criminal Law Notebook
Jump to: navigation, search

General Principles

See also Analyzing_Testimony#Lack_of_notes

There is no free-standing constitutional right to an "adequate investigation of the charges against him or her". They do not violate the right to full answer and defence.[1]

The Crown does not have an obligation to investigate possible defences.[2]

  1. R v Darwish, 2010 ONCA 124 (CanLII), at para 29 ("An accused does not have a free-standing constitutional right to an adequate investigation of the charges against him or her...Inadequacies in an investigation may lead to the ultimate failure of the prosecution, to a specific breach of a Charter right or to a civil remedy. Those inadequacies do not, however, in and of themselves constitute a denial of the right to make full answer and defence.")
    R v Barnes, [2009] O.J. No. 2123, 2009 ONCA 432 (CanLII), at para 1
  2. Darwish

Duty to Inquire

There is a "Stincombe-like" duty on the part of the Crown to inquire into areas of potential evidence.[1]

The Crown should "take reasonable steps to assist an accused in obtaining disclosure of relevant material in the possession of a third party". [2] This however, does not go so far as to require the Crown to "conduct investigations that may assist the defence". Otherwise the prosecution will "effectively surrender control of the investigation to the defence, or ultimately face a stay of the criminal charges"[3]

This duty is engaged where the accused provides evidence of “serious misconduct” and identifies third party information that it believes is “relevant” to that “serious misconduct”. This includes evidence of attempts to fabricate evidence. Where such evidence is put forward the Crown has a duty to make inquiries to third parties and if unsuccessful provide notice to the Defence to make their own O'Connor application. Where any information is retrieved it will be subject to a standard of relevancy.[4]

The duty to inquire does not extend into seeking out forensic audit reports that may support the defence.[5]

  1. R v McNeil
    R v Levin, 2013 ABQB 31 (CanLII) at para 40
  2. R v Darwish, 2010 ONCA 124 (CanLII)
  3. Darwish
  4. R v Levin at para 40
  5. R v Darwish

Collection of Evidence

Generally, there is no violation of the disclosure obligation arising from a failure to collect information.[1]

There is a duty to preserve evidence that arises from the right to full answer and defence.[2]

There is a general duty for an officer "to take complete, accurate and comprehensive notes."[3]

There is no burden on the police to record evidence of all conversations with witnesses, even important ones.[4]

Where the handwritten notes of an officer are illegible, then the obligation of disclosure can require the crown to transcribe the notes or otherwise provide them in legible form.[5]

The police do not have a general obligation under collect evidence in a certain manner or create specific material disclosure and so a failure to do so would not amount to a failure to provide disclosure or impact the right to make full answer and defence.[6]

The police have no obligation "to conduct their investigation in any particular way, to record every word spoken in an interview or to take a written statement from every potential witness who is interviewed."[7]

Investigative police strategies and "tactical information are presumptively not disclosable absent a particularized claim to relevance".[8]

Police are not obliged "to preserve everything that comes into their hands on the off-chance that it will be relevant in the future."[9]

The defence cannot direct the course of an investigation.[10] Accordingly, the defence cannot "conscript the police to undertake investigatory work for the accused" through the use of disclosure demands.[11]

  1. R v Hanano, 2006 MBQB 202 (CanLII) at para 20
  2. R v La, [1997] 2 SCR 680, 1997 CanLII 309 (SCC) at para 20
  3. R v Bailey, 2005 ABPC 61 (CanLII)
  4. R v Wicksted, 1996 CanLII 641 (ON CA), [1996] O.J. No. 1576, 29 O.R. (3d) 144 at p. 155: ("As pointed out by the trial judge, counsel were unable to provide him, nor were counsel able to provide this court with any Canadian authority wherein a stay was granted for the failure of investigating police officers to record conversations with important witnesses.")
  5. R v Bidyk, 2003 SKPC 124 (CanLII)
    R v Abrey, 2007 SKQB 213 (CanLII)
  6. R v Korski, 2007 MBQB 185 (CanLII)
    R v Darwish
    R v Barnes, 2009 ONCA 432 (CanLII)
  7. R v Korski
  8. R v Pickton, 2005 BCSC 1240 (CanLII) at para 44
  9. R v Lees, 2011 SKPC 98 (CanLII), [2011] S.J. No. 507 (SKPC)
  10. R v Darwish, 2010 ONCA 124 (CanLII), at para 30
  11. R v West, [2001] O.J. No. 3406, [2001] O.T.C. 711 (S.C.J.)(*no link), at para 75 per Hill J.
    Darwish at para 30

Note-taking

Incomplete notes do not breach the right to full answer and defence. As long as the majority of the officer's evidence is recorded in some fashion there will be no violation.[1]

The court have no authority to direct officers on how they should keep their notes.[2] They should not be micromanaging the police's handling of a case.[3]

A complete inconsistency between notes and testimony may result in a violation of s. 7 and stay of proceedings.[4]

  1. R v Bailey, 2005 ABPC 61 (CanLII) at para 38, 46
  2. R v Pickton, 2007 BCSC 2029 (CanLII), [2007] BCJ No. 3100 (B.C. S.C.) at para 9
  3. R v Bailey at para 38, 46
  4. e.g. R v Karunakaran, 2008 ONCJ 397 (CanLII)

See Also