R v Stinchcombe

R. v. Stinchcombe

[1991] 3 S.C.R. 326
Supreme Court of Canada — Sopinka J. | November 7, 1991

Background

William Stinchcombe, a Calgary lawyer, was charged with breach of trust, theft, and fraud relating to financial instruments he held for a client named Jack Abrams. The Crown alleged Stinchcombe had wrongfully appropriated property he held in trust, though the defence argued that despite Stinchcombe's formal status as trustee, Abrams had actually made him a business partner.

Patricia Lineham, Stinchcombe's former secretary, was a Crown witness at the preliminary inquiry where she gave evidence apparently very favourable to the defence regarding Abrams' conduct. After the preliminary inquiry but before trial, Lineham was interviewed twice by RCMP officers and gave recorded statements. Crown counsel informed defence counsel of the existence of these statements but refused to disclose their contents, also indicating they would not be calling Lineham as a witness because she was "not worthy of credit." On the third day of trial, defence counsel moved for disclosure of the statements or an order that the Crown call the witness.

Issues

1. What is the scope of the Crown's obligation to disclose relevant information to the defence?
2. When can Crown counsel exercise discretion to withhold information from disclosure?

The Crown's Duty to Disclose

The Supreme Court established a landmark rule: the Crown has a general legal duty to disclose all relevant information to the defence, whether it helps or hurts the Crown's case. This isn't about being fair — it's about ensuring justice is done. The Court emphasized that "the fruits of the investigation which are in its possession are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done."

The disclosure must happen early — before the accused chooses their trial method or enters a plea. The Crown must disclose both evidence they plan to use AND evidence they don't plan to use, including statements from witnesses they won't call. Crown counsel can exercise some discretion about timing and manner of disclosure, but this discretion is reviewable by the trial judge. The Crown cannot simply refuse to disclose because they think a witness isn't credible — that's for the trial judge to determine after seeing the evidence.

However, the duty isn't absolute. Information can be withheld if there's a reasonable possibility it would impair the right to make full answer and defence, unless justified by legal privilege, witness safety concerns, or other compelling reasons. But the burden is on the Crown to justify any withholding.

Key Takeaway

Prosecutors must hand over their entire file to the defence — the good, the bad, and everything in between.

If you're facing charges and the Crown won't disclose evidence, you can ask the court to order disclosure. The Crown can't hide evidence just because they think it makes their case look bad or because they don't trust their own witnesses.