Lien vers la décision
[6] The issue dealt with in this ruling, therefore, is whether Mr. Beckett is entitled to full paper disclosure.
[7] The grounds set out in Mr. Beckett's application included what became the main thrust of Mr. Beckett's submissions, namely that he has a fundamental right to full disclosure in hard copy form. That is not a sound statement of the law, of course. The law is coherently set out and applied in the context of electronic disclosure in the authorities cited by the Crown, namely: R. v. Stinchcombe, 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; R. v. Oszenaris, 2008 NLCA 53 (CanLII), 2008 NLCA 53 (leave to appeal refused); R. v. Therrein, 2005 BCSC 592 (CanLII); R. v. Pereira, 2007 BCSC 1533 (CanLII); R. v. Greer, 2006 BCSC 1894 (CanLII); R. v. Radwanski, [2006] O.J. No. 5250; R. v. Liew, 2012 ONSC 1826 (CanLII); R. v. Dunn (2009), 251 C.C.C. (3d) 384;R. v. Lam, 2004 ABQB 101 (CanLII); R. v. Barges, 2005 CanLII 34815 (ON SC), [2005] O.T.C. 844; R. v. Burns, 2010 SKPC 6 (CanLII); R. v. Piaskowski, 2007 MBQB 68 (CanLII); and R. v. Cianio, 2006 BCCA 311 (CanLII).
[8] The applicable legal principles can be summarized briefly as follows:
1. An accused is entitled to meaningful disclosure as a component of the fundamental right to make full answer and defence;
2. An accused is not entitled to disclosure in the manner of his or her choice; the Crown has a reviewable discretion as to the manner of disclosure;
3. The question on review is whether the disclosure provided or proposed is meaningful in the sense of being reasonably accessible, which in the case of e-disclosure has been held to mean organized and searchable;
4. The circumstances of the accused and/or counsel for the accused are relevant to the accessibility question;
5. The current absence of computer skills of an accused or counsel is not a bar to electronic disclosure, if those skills can be acquired relatively easily.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire