R v Stinchcombe

Stinchcombe established the Crown's duty to disclose all relevant information to the defence in indictable matters, regardless of whether the Crown intends to use it. The decision transformed criminal procedure in Canada.

A former employee of Stinchcombe, a lawyer, gave testimony favourable to the defence at the preliminary inquiry. The witness then provided a different statement to police. The Crown chose not to call her at trial and did not disclose the statement.

Does the Crown have a duty to disclose all relevant information to the defence?

Yes. New trial ordered.

The Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant non-privileged information in its possession or control, whether inculpatory or exculpatory and whether the Crown intends to introduce it at trial. The duty is triggered when the defence requests disclosure. The Crown's discretion is reviewable.

Sopinka J held that the fruits of the investigation are not the property of the Crown but of the public, to be used to ensure justice is done. Withholding relevant information impairs the right to make full answer and defence under s.7. Privileged information is excepted; relevance is the touchstone for everything else.

Foundational principle of Canadian criminal procedure. Subsequent jurisprudence (McNeil, O'Connor, Mills) refines disclosure obligations especially regarding third-party records and police misconduct. Cited in nearly every disclosure dispute.

R v Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326, 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC).

Lamer CJ, La Forest J, L'Heureux-Dubé J, Sopinka J, Cory J, McLachlin J, Stevenson J