Also, in a turnabout the feds now won't modify RCMP rules about disclosure of evidence to the defense but that's ONLY because they were discovered to be total liars and hypocrites.
Finally read it. I suspect the smarter ppl in the department explained to Nicholson that modifying the disclosure rules would never fly with the courts, as, of course, it shouldn't.
I don't know about the paperwork. Why do they have so much paperwork? I'm tempted to take that claim srsly only because an assoc of defence lawyers agrees it's a problem, so maybe. But on issues like this, I would always line up behind the CCLA. Defence counsel have to have all the evidence prosecution is bringing forward before things proceed.
Maybe the prosecutors aren't being very good editors? That's a possibility. I thought that disclosure covered only what was being brought forward at trial, not absolutely everything the police had done.
We need a lawyer here. pookie? You out there?
pookie would be the expert, but I can say that the Crown has to disclose everything which is relevant to someone's charge, whether or not the Crown intends to use it at trial (the SCC case dictating this being Stinchcombe
). This has even been expanded to include whether or not the police involved have been subject to findings of serious misconduct (McNeil
). Disclosure is a good thing, it helps settle things one way or the other. That doesn't mean that disclosure demands, or what we call O'Connor
applications (to get information from a 3rd party, outside of the control of the Crown), looking for things that are not relevant, aren't a pain in the ass.