Axonevidence log in

The Crown has no obligation to send police or other authorities to secure additional statements from witnesses requested by defence.[3]

AxonEvidencefind your agency

This duty is engaged where the accused provides evidence of “serious misconduct” and identifies third-party information that it believes is “relevant” to that “serious misconduct”. This includes evidence of attempts to fabricate evidence. Where such evidence is put forward the Crown has a duty to make inquiries to third parties and if unsuccessful provide notice to the Defence to make their own O'Connor application. Where any information is retrieved it will be subject to a standard of relevancy.[6]

The court has no authority to direct officers on how they should keep their notes.[4] They should not be micromanaging the police's handling of a case.[5]

bcpd.evidence.com login

It is recognized that the accused has "limited means to access relevant materials in the hand of those third parties. The Crown is in a better position to bridge the gap between first-party and third-party records by attempting to obtain records when "put on notice of its existence" and it is "reasonably feasible to do so."[2]

The defence cannot direct the course of an investigation.[6] Accordingly, the defence cannot "conscript the police to undertake investigatory work for the accused" through the use of disclosure demands.[7]

Even where the inquiry is of private information of the accused, there is no obligation to obtain a judicial authorization to interview anyone.[6]

The failure to photograph the purse and identification card was not a violation of any duty owed by Cst. Feser. Photographs might have supported the narrative of events provided by Cst. Feser and reduced prospects for challenge. The case must simply be decided on the evidence that there was. And this is not a case where any significant inferences can be drawn from the absence of evidence.

There is no free-standing constitutional right to an "adequate investigation of the charges against him or her". They do not violate the right to full answer and defence.[1]

Axon Academy login

MyEvidence

When considering officer conduct as it relates to the integrity of an investigation or officer safety, police should be given "a good deal of leeway."[5]

The failure to take notes does not "automatically" affect the reliability of the officer's recollections. Rather it is determined on a case-by-case basis.[3]

The police have no obligation "to conduct their investigation in any particular way, to record every word spoken in an interview or to take a written statement from every potential witness who is interviewed."[4]

Police officers have a duty to take contemporaneous notes, recording their observations accurately and comprehensively.[2]

Notes are an important part of the criminal justice system. They are often the closest recording to what a witness saw or experienced. They can be the most accurate record of events.[8]

Failure to make notes permits the judge to draw inferences from it including that the events testified to did not happen.[13]

fort worth police evidence.com login

The police do not have a general obligation to collect evidence in a certain manner or create specific material disclosure and so a failure to do so would not amount to a failure to provide disclosure or impact the right to make full answer and defence.[3]

The Crown should "take reasonable steps to assist an accused in obtaining disclosure of relevant material in the possession of a third party". [4] This, however, does not go so far as to require the Crown to "conduct investigations that may assist the defence". Otherwise, the prosecution will "effectively surrender control of the investigation to the defence, or ultimately face a stay of the criminal charges"[5]

Axonevidence log inlogin

Police are not obliged "to preserve everything that comes into their hands on the off-chance that it will be relevant in the future."[3]

Investigative police strategies and "tactical information are presumptively not disclosable absent a particularized claim to relevance."[5]

Evidence log inapp

There is no "absolute right to originals" of records seized by police. However, when originals are not available the Crown should explain their absence.[1]

Incomplete notes do not breach the right to full answer and defence. As long as the majority of the officer's evidence is recorded in some fashion there will be no violation.[6]

Police are required to record "significant events". What constitutes significant events and the level of detailed recorded is granted wide discretion.[10]

Where the handwritten notes of an officer are illegible, then the obligation of disclosure can require the crown to transcribe the notes or otherwise provide them in legible form.[12]