R. v. Thompson, 2015 ONCA 800
[56] In support of this submission, he relies on Wood v. Schaeffer, 2011 ONCA 716, 107 O.R. (3d) 721, rev’d on other grounds 2013 SCC 71, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1053, for the proposition that when notes are used to refresh an officer’s memory at trial, it is vital that the notes used record the officer’s own independent recollection of the events in question.
[57] The issue here is that the appellant could not compare the rough handwritten central notes with the typed version, not that each officer failed to prepare individual notes or that the notes were made in a group, as in R. v. Jinje, 2015 ONSC 2081, [2015] O.J. No. 1590.
[58] I appreciate that the quality of the record-keeping and the adequacy of an officer’s notes are important, as noted in R. v. Odgers, 2009 ONCJ 287, [2009] O.J. No. 2592. In the post-Stinchcombe era, a police officer’s notes are more than an aide memoire and a potential source of fruitful cross-examination; they are a source against which to check the Crown’s disclosure.
[59] The purpose of central notes was discussed by Pattillo J. in R. v. Thompson, 2014 ONSC 250, 111 W.C.B. (2d) 181, at para. 18:
The evidence establishes that the purpose of central notes is to enable the officers engaged in a real time police exercise to be able to concentrate on the task at hand without having to worry about noting down times, observations and actions during their involvement…At the end of the surveillance, the information in [the central notetaker’s] handwritten notes [are] canvassed with each officer and the observations [are] confirmed to reflect each officer’s recollection. [The central notetaker] then type[s] up his notes…
[60] Pattillo J. held, at para. 19, that when central notes are relied upon it is important that every officer involved in the investigation review them as soon as possible after the event to ensure that the observations or actions attributed to them have been accurately recorded.
[61] This appears to have occurred in this case. The appellant received disclosure of the typed report concerning the surveillance of his restaurant. The typed notes were a copy of the handwritten notes. The fact that the additions or deletions on the handwritten notes are not shown on the typed copy does not mean that the quality and adequacy of the central notes is lacking.
[62] After reviewing the central notes, the officers made separate notes of their own participation. The officers involved that day testified and each testified that he had an independent recollection of the events in question. Each officer was subject to cross-examination.
[63] In the circumstances, the trial judge did not err in placing little weight on the lost handwritten central notes.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire