OHTA.ca

Hello all

(simon or anyone else can feel free to answer)

I requested disclosure of a radar manual in original disclosure request. Didn't get disclosure until trial date, so an adjournment was granted. At that time the Provincial Prosecutor stated that it wasn't his policy to release the manual to defendants. At next hearing to set a trial date i filled a written motion and requested the whole manual. I cited some case law (the Thunder Bay decision from 2009) but the JP decided that all i was entitled to was the testing procedures. After the hearing the Prosecutor gave a single page with the testing procedures on it.

Well, knowing that he was going to resist giving me anything, I filed a FOI (freedom of information) request and got a copy of the whole manual for the specific radar set identified in the original disclosure.

When I compare the testing procedures page given to me by the prosecutor to the pages I got from the FOI request I noticed that they have different page numbers..ie the pages from the prosecutor are numbered 53/54 while the FOI pages are 50/51 so that means the Prosecutors pages came from a slightly different manual....ok so what might else be different I ask....

So I looked at the pages and on the FOI pages there is a whole section that is missing from the prosecutor pages....

So does this mean that the prosecutor gave me incomplete disclosure? If so, would I make a pretrial motion for incomplete disclosure and the remedy being a stay of the charges? If i did pursue this, I have to prove that the prosecutor missed some information by showing the "complete" pages and if I have the complete pages, will the JP tell me that I have the complete pages and therefore I will not be prejudiced etc etc and therefore the trial will continue?

A second issue regarding disclosure, in another topic, I asked about the "template"....When I asked for explanations of the officer's handwritten notebook notes, he included the information from the template....since he mentioned this in the followup disclosure, should this have been disclosed in my original request ( and I never got a copy of the original template)...any thoughts about this?

Hopefully that made sense....thanks as always for your info

With regards to the pages being from apparently different manuals, I don't think that's going to be grounds for insufficient disclosure. I think the prosecutor is going to say you have the testing information, which is all you were entitled to...who cares where it came from.

I think you would have to show that there was some reason to believe this is not above board and that the crown is trying to hide information from you in order to pursue this line any further.

According their Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 11, you are entitled to:

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

In your case, the police-person, the prosecutor, and JP all are paid by and work for the corporation (i.e. government) who created the Statute under which you are being charged.

Does anyone else see a conflict or problem here? Looks like an 11d Charter violation.

imfalcon wrote:Does anyone else see a conflict or problem here?

No.

I agree with Simon,

The question is now that you have the testing information, do you know what to do with it?