R v Chu, 2016 SKCA 156
[47] Shortly after the Supreme Court of Canada released Stinchcombe, and before Chaplin, this Court established a procedure to review the Crown’s refusal to disclose in Laporte. According to Laporte, the Crown is required to produce “a written, itemized inventory of the information in its possession, identifying those items which it intends to disclose and those which it does not, and containing, in respect of the latter items, a statement in each case of the basis upon which the Crown proposes to withhold disclosure” (at para 18). The Crown should describe each item “with sufficient detail that counsel will be enabled to make a reasoned decision as to whether to seek disclosure or not”.
[48] As Ottenbreit J.A. indicated in Anderson, the courts in Saskatchewan have continued to follow the procedure set out in Laporte. Although it is not mandatory and it is not inconsistent with Chaplin, it is a tool to help determine whether the Crown has met its disclosure obligations (see paragraph 97 of Anderson). Ottenbreit J.A. confirmed, however, that the Crown “has to justify non-disclosure” (at para 96) in circumstances where the Crown refuses to disclose documents known to exist.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire