Lost or Destroyed Evidence: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - ", \([0-9]{4}\), ([0-9]+) CCC" to ", $1 CCC" |
|||
| (20 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[fr:Preuves_perdues_ou_détruites]] | |||
{{Currency2|May|2021}} | |||
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderDisclosure}} | {{LevelZero}}{{HeaderDisclosure}} | ||
{{HeaderAbuse}} | {{HeaderAbuse}} | ||
| Line 8: | Line 10: | ||
; Lost Originals | ; Lost Originals | ||
There is a limited right to review original documents. Where the originals have gone missing the Crown has an obligation to explain how it went missing.<ref> | There is a limited right to review original documents. Where the originals have gone missing the Crown has an obligation to explain how it went missing.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|FCB|1zrpp|2000 NSCA 35 (CanLII)| | {{CanLIIRP|FCB|1zrpp|2000 NSCA 35 (CanLII)|142 CCC (3d) 540}}{{perNSCA|Roscoe JA}}{{Atps|547-48}} (N.S. C.A.)<br> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|Bero|1fbg9|2000 CanLII 16956 (ON CA)|151 CCC (3d) 545}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atL|1fbg9|30}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Reason for Loss | ; Reason for Loss | ||
The loss of evidence will not result in the breach of the duty to disclose so long as the conduct of the police was reasonable.<ref> | The loss of evidence will not result in the breach of the duty to disclose so long as the conduct of the police was reasonable.<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|La|1fr18|1997 CanLII 309 (SCC)|[1997] 2 SCR 680}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}{{atL|1fr18|21}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Full Answer and Defence | ; Full Answer and Defence | ||
Where the loss of evidence deprives the accused of an ability to make full answer and defence, such as were the evidence would have ''likely'' would have assisted in the accused to meet the case, it may be stayed as abuse of process.<ref> | Where the loss of evidence deprives the accused of an ability to make full answer and defence, such as were the evidence would have ''likely'' would have assisted in the accused to meet the case, it may be stayed as abuse of process.<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|PSL|2326f|1995 CanLII 8939 (BC CA)|103 CCC (3d) 341}}{{perBCCA|Cumming JA}}{{AtL|2326f|51}}("if the defence can establish that the missing evidence was of such potential importance that its destruction deprived the accused of his ability to make full answer and defence, a judicial stay of proceedings may be warranted. This threshold will be met where it is shown that the missing material would have likely assisted the defence in meeting the Crown's case.") | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Unacceptable Negligence | ; Notice of Destruction | ||
Notifying the accused ahead of the destruction of property inviting inspection may cure the prejudice caused by the loss of evidence from the destruction of property.<ref> | |||
e.g. {{CanLIIRP|Berner|fttg9|2012 BCCA 466 (CanLII)|329 BCAC 275}}{{perBCCA|Ryan JA}} - car in collision destroyed by police prior to trial. Officer sent registered mail letter to accused prior to releasing vehicle.</ref> | |||
; Offence-related Circumstances | |||
Discarding of the mouthpiece used in an alcohol roadside screening device will not violate the right to full answer and defence under s. 7 of the Charter.<ref> | |||
{{CanLIIR-N|Lee|2010 ONSC 4117}}<br> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Boylan|fn6gv|2011 BCPC 235 (CanLII)|20 MVR (6th) 234}}{{perBCPC|Frame J}}<br> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Goosen|g73bj|2014 SKQB 135 (CanLII)|SJ No 290}}{{perSKQB|Tholl J}}<br> | |||
cf. {{CanLIIR-N|Dhillon| (1999), 41 WCB (2d) 48}} - stay of proceedings | |||
</ref> | |||
; Lost Court Record | |||
The loss or destruction of the recording and transcripts of a preliminary inquiry will be sufficient for an acquittal due to failure to make full answer and defence.<ref> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|MacLeod|1nzg2|1994 CanLII 5243 (NB CA)|93 CCC (3d) 339}}{{perNBCA|Ryan JA}}</ref> | |||
; Destruction by Third Party | |||
Where records held by a third party are destroyed there may be a stay of proceedings.<ref> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Carosella|1fr3p|1997 CanLII 402 (SCC)|[1997] 1 SCR 80}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}} - rape crisis centre destroyed nurses notes per centre's policy | |||
</ref> | |||
; Remedy | |||
Where the circumstances permit, a remedy for loss of evidence may include a jury instruction on the importance of the evidence lost.<ref> | |||
{{supra1|Hersi}}{{atL|hxg87|39}} | |||
</ref> | |||
{{reflist|2}} | |||
=== Unacceptable Negligence Standard === | |||
There can only be a breach of the duty to disclose where the loss or destroyed evidence was found to due to "unacceptable negligence" <ref> | There can only be a breach of the duty to disclose where the loss or destroyed evidence was found to due to "unacceptable negligence" <ref> | ||
{{supra1|FCB}}<br> | {{supra1|FCB}}<br> | ||
| Line 40: | Line 69: | ||
Not every instance where negligence that results in the loss of evidence will result in a Charter breach.<ref> | Not every instance where negligence that results in the loss of evidence will result in a Charter breach.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Lipovetsky|1tf3v|2007 ONCJ 484 (CanLII)| | {{CanLIIRP|Lipovetsky|1tf3v|2007 ONCJ 484 (CanLII)|[2007] OJ No 4135}}{{perONCJ|Kenkel J}}{{atL|1tf3v|19}} ("Even where there is negligence on the part of the Crown, the loss of a videotape does not automatically violate the Charter. A Charter breach is established only where the lost evidence is shown by the applicant to be relevant to the issues at trial.")<br> | ||
See also {{CanLIIRP|Dulude|1jsnv|2004 BCPC 524 (CanLII)| | See also {{CanLIIRP|Dulude|1jsnv|2004 BCPC 524 (CanLII)|[2004] OJ No 3576}}{{perBCPC|Stansfield J}}{{atL|1jsnv|30}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Nor will every case loss of evidence will infringe the accused’s right to make full answer and defence. “Owing to the frailties of human nature, evidence will occasionally be lost” <ref> | Nor will every case loss of evidence will infringe the accused’s right to make full answer and defence. “Owing to the frailties of human nature, evidence will occasionally be lost” <ref> | ||
| Line 47: | Line 76: | ||
{{supra1|La}}{{atL|1fr18|25}}</ref>. The principal consideration, in the explanation, “is whether the Crown or the police (as the case may be) took reasonable steps in the circumstances to preserve the evidence” <ref> | {{supra1|La}}{{atL|1fr18|25}}</ref>. The principal consideration, in the explanation, “is whether the Crown or the police (as the case may be) took reasonable steps in the circumstances to preserve the evidence” <ref> | ||
{{supra1|La}}{{atL|1fr18|21}}<br> | {{supra1|La}}{{atL|1fr18|21}}<br> | ||
and see {{CanLIIRP|Kociuk (R.J.)|fnl3w|2011 MBCA 85 (CanLII)| | and see {{CanLIIRP|Kociuk (R.J.)|fnl3w|2011 MBCA 85 (CanLII)|278 CCC (3d) 1}}{{perMBCA|Chartier JA}}</ref> | ||
Even where it does not amount to "unacceptable negligence", there may still be a breach of section 7 of the Charter where " the loss can be shown to be so prejudicial to the right to make a full answer and defence that it impairs the right to a fair trial. " The only available remedy would be a stay.<ref> | Even where it does not amount to "unacceptable negligence", there may still be a breach of section 7 of the Charter where " the loss can be shown to be so prejudicial to the right to make a full answer and defence that it impairs the right to a fair trial. " The only available remedy would be a stay.<ref> | ||
| Line 55: | Line 84: | ||
The inquiry should be upon the "reasonableness of the officer's conduct that resulted in the loss of the evidence.<ref> | The inquiry should be upon the "reasonableness of the officer's conduct that resulted in the loss of the evidence.<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|Hersi|hxg87|2019 ONCA 94 (CanLII)|373 CCC (3d) 229}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atL|hxg87|30}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The more obvious the importance of the evidence the greater care is expected from the officer.<ref> | The more obvious the importance of the evidence the greater care is expected from the officer.<ref> | ||
{{ibid1|Hersi}}{{atL|hxg87|30}} | {{ibid1|Hersi}}{{atL|hxg87|30}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 92: | Line 95: | ||
When considering whether a stay is appropriate for a lost statement, the Court should consider "all the surrounding background facts and circumstances of the complainant's evidence" such as:<ref> | When considering whether a stay is appropriate for a lost statement, the Court should consider "all the surrounding background facts and circumstances of the complainant's evidence" such as:<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|JGB|1fblb|2001 CanLII 24101 (ON CA)|151 CCC (3d) 363}}{{perONCA|Weiler JA}}{{atL|1fblb|9}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
* "the emotional or psychological status of the complainant at the time the allegations were made" | * "the emotional or psychological status of the complainant at the time the allegations were made" | ||
| Line 107: | Line 110: | ||
* "what other witnesses had to say at the time in support or contradiction of the complainant's allegations" | * "what other witnesses had to say at the time in support or contradiction of the complainant's allegations" | ||
The emphasis of consideration should be on "whether other available evidence contains essentially the same information as the lost evidence" | The emphasis of consideration should be on "whether other available evidence contains essentially the same information as the lost evidence."<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|Girou|gvd4r|2016 ABQB 607 (CanLII)|AJ No 1126}}{{perABQB|Thomas J}}{{atL|gvd4r|20}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 115: | Line 118: | ||
==Lost Trial Exhibits== | ==Lost Trial Exhibits== | ||
A "missing exhibit" that has already been described in evidence may not necessarily cause prejudice to the acccused.<Ref> | A "missing exhibit" that has already been described in evidence may not necessarily cause prejudice to the acccused.<Ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRx|Serre|22bzc|2009 ONCA 108 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
In a jury trial, an exhibit list after the jury had an opportunity to examine it, there may not be an impairment of full answer and defence.<ref> | In a jury trial, an exhibit list after the jury had an opportunity to examine it, there may not be an impairment of full answer and defence.<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|Waszek|7cjc|2003 CanLII 18152 (ON SC)|106 CRR (2d) 127}}{{perONSC-H|Cumming J}} | ||
</ref> | |||
Whether an exhibit lost during trial should result in a mistrial is a question of law and so should be determined by the trial judge and not the jury.<ref> | |||
R v Parberry, 2005 CanLII 40137 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/1lwxq | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Latest revision as of 19:45, 7 September 2024
| This page was last substantively updated or reviewed May 2021. (Rev. # 96410) |
- < Procedure and Practice
- < Pre-Trial and Trial Matters
- < Abuse of Process
General Principles
Where evidence is in the possession of the Crown or Police, there is a duty to preserve this evidence. Where this evidence goes missing or is destroyed, it can in certain circumstances, form grounds for a stay of proceedings under s. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter. The stay is on the basis that the rights under s. 7 of the Charter to make full answer and defence and under s. 11(d) to a fair trial have been violated.
- Lost Originals
There is a limited right to review original documents. Where the originals have gone missing the Crown has an obligation to explain how it went missing.[1]
- Reason for Loss
The loss of evidence will not result in the breach of the duty to disclose so long as the conduct of the police was reasonable.[2]
- Full Answer and Defence
Where the loss of evidence deprives the accused of an ability to make full answer and defence, such as were the evidence would have likely would have assisted in the accused to meet the case, it may be stayed as abuse of process.[3]
- Notice of Destruction
Notifying the accused ahead of the destruction of property inviting inspection may cure the prejudice caused by the loss of evidence from the destruction of property.[4]
- Offence-related Circumstances
Discarding of the mouthpiece used in an alcohol roadside screening device will not violate the right to full answer and defence under s. 7 of the Charter.[5]
- Lost Court Record
The loss or destruction of the recording and transcripts of a preliminary inquiry will be sufficient for an acquittal due to failure to make full answer and defence.[6]
- Destruction by Third Party
Where records held by a third party are destroyed there may be a stay of proceedings.[7]
- Remedy
Where the circumstances permit, a remedy for loss of evidence may include a jury instruction on the importance of the evidence lost.[8]
- ↑
R v FCB, 2000 NSCA 35 (CanLII), 142 CCC (3d) 540, per Roscoe JA, at pp. 547-48 (N.S. C.A.)
R v Bero, 2000 CanLII 16956 (ON CA), 151 CCC (3d) 545, per Doherty JA, at para 30
- ↑ R v La, 1997 CanLII 309 (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 680, per Sopinka J, at para 21
- ↑ R v PSL, 1995 CanLII 8939 (BC CA), 103 CCC (3d) 341, per Cumming JA, at para 51("if the defence can establish that the missing evidence was of such potential importance that its destruction deprived the accused of his ability to make full answer and defence, a judicial stay of proceedings may be warranted. This threshold will be met where it is shown that the missing material would have likely assisted the defence in meeting the Crown's case.")
- ↑ e.g. R v Berner, 2012 BCCA 466 (CanLII), 329 BCAC 275, per Ryan JA - car in collision destroyed by police prior to trial. Officer sent registered mail letter to accused prior to releasing vehicle.
- ↑
R v Lee2010 ONSC 4117(*no CanLII links)
R v Boylan, 2011 BCPC 235 (CanLII), 20 MVR (6th) 234, per Frame J
R v Goosen, 2014 SKQB 135 (CanLII), SJ No 290, per Tholl J
cf. R v Dhillon (1999), 41 WCB (2d) 48(*no CanLII links) - stay of proceedings - ↑ R v MacLeod, 1994 CanLII 5243 (NB CA), 93 CCC (3d) 339, per Ryan JA
- ↑ R v Carosella, 1997 CanLII 402 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 80, per Sopinka J - rape crisis centre destroyed nurses notes per centre's policy
- ↑ Hersi, supra, at para 39
Unacceptable Negligence Standard
There can only be a breach of the duty to disclose where the loss or destroyed evidence was found to due to "unacceptable negligence" [1] A reach of this duty will result in a violation of s. 7 of the Charter.[2] Additionally, it may amount to an abuse of process.[3] The only available remedy would be a stay.[4]
Not every instance where negligence that results in the loss of evidence will result in a Charter breach.[5] Nor will every case loss of evidence will infringe the accused’s right to make full answer and defence. “Owing to the frailties of human nature, evidence will occasionally be lost” [6]. The Crown must explain the loss and satisfy the trial judge that it was not due to unacceptable negligence or an abuse of process. If satisfactorily explained, the onus is on the accused to “establish actual prejudice to his or her right to make full answer and defence” [7]. The principal consideration, in the explanation, “is whether the Crown or the police (as the case may be) took reasonable steps in the circumstances to preserve the evidence” [8]
Even where it does not amount to "unacceptable negligence", there may still be a breach of section 7 of the Charter where " the loss can be shown to be so prejudicial to the right to make a full answer and defence that it impairs the right to a fair trial. " The only available remedy would be a stay.[9]
The inquiry should be upon the "reasonableness of the officer's conduct that resulted in the loss of the evidence.[10] The more obvious the importance of the evidence the greater care is expected from the officer.[11]
- ↑
FCB, supra
Bero, supra, at para 30
- ↑
FCB, supra
Bero, supra, at para 30
- ↑
FCB, supra
Bero, supra, at para 30 - ↑ Bero, supra, at para 30
- ↑
R v Lipovetsky, 2007 ONCJ 484 (CanLII), [2007] OJ No 4135, per Kenkel J, at para 19 ("Even where there is negligence on the part of the Crown, the loss of a videotape does not automatically violate the Charter. A Charter breach is established only where the lost evidence is shown by the applicant to be relevant to the issues at trial.")
See also R v Dulude, 2004 BCPC 524 (CanLII), [2004] OJ No 3576, per Stansfield J, at para 30 - ↑ La, supra, at para 20
- ↑ La, supra, at para 25
- ↑
La, supra, at para 21
and see R v Kociuk (R.J.), 2011 MBCA 85 (CanLII), 278 CCC (3d) 1, per Chartier JA - ↑
RCB, supra
Bero, supra, at para 30
- ↑
R v Hersi, 2019 ONCA 94 (CanLII), 373 CCC (3d) 229, per Doherty JA, at para 30
- ↑ Hersi, ibid., at para 30
Lost Statements of the Complainant
When considering whether a stay is appropriate for a lost statement, the Court should consider "all the surrounding background facts and circumstances of the complainant's evidence" such as:[1]
- "the emotional or psychological status of the complainant at the time the allegations were made"
- "the time when the complaints were made in relation to when the allegations occurred, i.e. before or after therapy"
- "whether the investigating officers who took the statement were available for questioning"
- "whether the complainant made other statements prior to trial that the defence can use to attack her credibility"
- "whether the Crown concedes that proposed substitute evidence is a statement of the complainant and may be used for the purposes of cross-examination of the complainant"
- "whether the statements that do exist appear to contain the same amount of detail as the lost statement"
- "the extent of the complainant's present ability to recall the contents of the earlier statements"
- "the complainant's present ability to recall the details surrounding the various alleged incidents of abuse"
- "any apparent or potential inconsistencies in the complainant's trial testimony or between her other statements and her evidence at the preliminary hearing"
- "whether the accused was made aware of the contents of the lost evidence before its destruction or disappearance"
- "whether the Crown gave any undertaking to the accused at the time that matters would not proceed with the result that the accused did not retain his own records" and
- "what other witnesses had to say at the time in support or contradiction of the complainant's allegations"
The emphasis of consideration should be on "whether other available evidence contains essentially the same information as the lost evidence."[2]
- ↑
R v JGB, 2001 CanLII 24101 (ON CA), 151 CCC (3d) 363, per Weiler JA, at para 9
- ↑
R v Girou, 2016 ABQB 607 (CanLII), AJ No 1126, per Thomas J, at para 20
Lost Trial Exhibits
A "missing exhibit" that has already been described in evidence may not necessarily cause prejudice to the acccused.[1]
In a jury trial, an exhibit list after the jury had an opportunity to examine it, there may not be an impairment of full answer and defence.[2]
Whether an exhibit lost during trial should result in a mistrial is a question of law and so should be determined by the trial judge and not the jury.[3]
- ↑ R v Serre, 2009 ONCA 108 (CanLII), per curiam
- ↑ R v Waszek, 2003 CanLII 18152 (ON SC), 106 CRR (2d) 127, per Cumming J
- ↑ R v Parberry, 2005 CanLII 40137 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/1lwxq