R. v. Brown (D.A.R.), (2000) 144 Man.R.(2d) 157 (QB)

JudgeKennedy, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
Case DateMarch 09, 2000
JurisdictionManitoba
Citations(2000), 144 Man.R.(2d) 157 (QB)

R. v. Brown (D.A.R.) (2000), 144 Man.R.(2d) 157 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.031

Her Majesty The Queen v. Douglas Allan Robert Brown (accused/applicant)

(CR 98-01-20167)

Indexed As: R. v. Brown (D.A.R.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Kennedy, J.

March 9, 2000.

Summary:

The accused brought a motion for disclo­sure of the R.C.M.P. service records of four investigating police officers. The accused also asked the Crown to ascer­tain the exist­ence of files other than the police service records which might contain psychological reports. The Crown advised that there were such files in the possession of the in-house psychologist or psychiatrist.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application for production and/or disclosure.

Criminal Law - Topic 129

Rights of accused - Right to discovery or production - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 4505 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - The accused brought a motion for disclosure by the Crown of the R.C.M.P. service records of four investigating police officers - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench stated that while the service records were not in the hands of the Crown, they should be imputed to be in the hands of the Crown as they were gen­erally within the control of the prosecution - However, the court stated that the records were sub­ject to the rules applicable to an order for production of third party records set out in R. v. O'Connor (H.P.) (S.C.C.) as they were cloaked with a reasonable expectation of privacy and were prima facie irrelevant - See paragraph 10.

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - The accused brought a motion for disclosure by the Crown of the R.C.M.P. service records of four investigating police officers - The accused also asked the Crown to ascertain the existence of files other than the police service records which might contain psychological reports - The Crown advised that there were such files in the possession of the in-house psychologist or psychiatrist - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench considered the rules appli­cable to an order for production of third party records - After balancing the ac­cused's right to make full answer and defence against the privacy rights of the witnesses, the court dismissed the applica­tion for disclosure of the files which were not shown to be "likely relevant".

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 153; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 44 C.R.(4th) 1; 29 W.C.B.(2d) 152, appld. [para. 2].

R. v. Vokey (W.J.) (1992), 102 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 275; 323 A.P.R. 275; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Counsel:

B. Wilford, for the Provincial Crown;

M. Mason, for the R.C.M.P.;

I. Frost, for the Legal Services Branch of the Department of Justice;

K. McCaffrey and A. Libman, for the accused/applicant.

This motion was heard before Kennedy, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the follow­ing decision on March 9, 2000.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT