Regina v Stinchombe: 1991

(Supreme Court of Canada) Sopinka J described the fruits of a police investigation as: ‘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.’


Sopinka J


(1991) 68 CCC (3d)

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Mills, Regina v Poole HL 24-Jul-1997
The prosecution have a duty to disclose to the defence the statement of an adverse witness and not just to provide the name and address, even though that person was not seen as credible witness by the prosecution. ‘the rule in Bryant and Dickson is . .
CitedNunn v Suffolk Constabulary and Another Admn 4-May-2012
The claimant had been convicted of murder and his appeal had failed. He now sought disclosure of the forensic material held by the police to his own legal team.
Held: Permission to apply for review was granted, but the claim failed. ‘It is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.456510