R. v. Stinchcombe

SCCInfoBox
case-name=R. v. Stinchcombe
full-case-name=William B. Stinchcombe v. Her Majesty The Queen
heard-date=May 2, 1991
decided-date=November 7, 1991
citations= [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326
history=
ruling= Appeal allowed, new trial ordered
ratio=
SCC=1991-1992
Unanimous=Sopinka J.
NotParticipating=
LawsApplied=

"R. v. Stinchcombe", [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on the disclosure of evidence in a trial and is considered by most to be one of the most significant criminal law cases of the decade. The Court found that the Crown had a duty to produce all evidence that could potentially be of help to the defence whether they use it or not. This case put to rest the long standing issue of whether the Crown could purposely deny the defence evidence that the Crown found would be harmful to their case.

Background

William Stinchcombe was a lawyer who was charged with theft and fraud. One of the Crown's witnesses was a former secretary of Stinchcombe's who had given evidence at the preliminary inquiry that supported the defence's position. Later a statement was taken from her by an RCMP officer, however, at trial the defence was denied access to the contents of the statement. When the Crown decided not to use the statement the defence made a request for it to the judge who refused to provide it. The accused was eventually convicted.

Reasons of the Court

Sopinka J., writing for a unanimous Court, held that the judge was wrong in refusing the application as the Crown was under a duty to disclose all evidence. The duty, wrote Sopkina, is derived from the right for an accused to have access to a full defence which has been entrenched under section 7 of the Charter. This duty, however, is still subject to rules of privilege.

ee also

* List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Lamer Court)

External links

*