A co-worker (NOT ME!) got a court date of just 2 months after submitting his not-guilty plea on a speeding ticket. He hand delivered his disclosure request to the court and the clerk told him he needs to take it to the police station. He did so...

4 weeks went by and he just received a phone message from the officer stating that he will hand deliver the information when they meet at the courthouse before trial (less than a week away).

He called me to see what his options are:

- I suggested he wait 'till I get advice HERE

It's pretty obvious to me that he would, at a minimum, be awarded a continuance based on the need to review the disclosure, then seek legal council. But I wanted to check and see if he has grounds to seek an outright dismissal based on the last-minute disclosure.

Any thoughts?

No harm in asking for a stay but I think the continuance will be awarded. If the continuance stretches out to the magic 9 month plus mark, then file form 4F could be filed out and the stay awarded anyway. If I were the JP I would dismiss the charges based on these tactics. It's not like Joe Public gets a ticket everyday, but the courts deal with them everyday so there is no excuse.

Just to be clear, the officer said he would present the disclosure "just before trial", not in advance. I read a response by Radar ID (elsewhere on this forum, in a similar scenario) that perhaps he should refuse to accept the last minute disclosure package and apply to the court for a stay instead.

Bookm wrote:

Just to be clear, the officer said he would present the disclosure "just before trial", not in advance. I read a response by Radar ID (elsewhere on this forum, in a similar scenario) that perhaps he should refuse to accept the last minute disclosure package and apply to the court for a stay instead.

'Bear wrote that the request for disclosure comes from the prosocuter to him....can't find it right now......so why wouldn't it go from him to the prosocuter to the defendant?????

Reflections wrote:

'Bear wrote that the request for disclosure comes from the prosocuter to him....can't find it right now......so why wouldn't it go from him to the prosocuter to the defendant?????

Almost exactly.... here is how my office runs things....seems easy enough

- person uses option # 3 and returns PON to court

- court sends trial notice to defendant and officer

- officer receives notice and submits disclosure (Police court officer drives the disclosure to court and files it)

- person asks for disclosure and disclosure is already at court house

- court people just have to pull out the disclosure and mail it

Yes, I remember reading that which is why a DOUBLE-asked him if it was FOR SURE the officer that called him... He's sure (left his name as Constable so-'n-so). Seemed odd to me.

Would this make a difference to the JP? My "gut" says, Improper Disclosure.

Bookm wrote:

Would this make a difference to the JP? My "gut" says, Improper Disclosure.

Don't think it is improper disclosure.

What happens is our court has a file for each case and can track everything on the front of the file (ie: first court date, resolution meeting, next court date, adjournments, disclosure etc..) Something like the "police notes thread" area...not marked down...didn't happen?

Just a couple of points. Disclosure is the sole responsibility of the Crown. While the Crown may delegate that responsibility to the police or another agency, the obligation for disclosure remains with the Crown alone.

So why was your co-worker requesting disclosure from the police??? It should never have been sent to them directly. (An FOI request is different).

Second,in R. v. Egger, [1993] (2 S.C.R. 451), the Supreme Court stated "disclosure must be made early enough to leave the accused enough time to take any steps that may affect that right..." In other words, you can't simply disclose at the last minute.

In R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] (3 S.C.R. 326), the Supreme Court stated that the element of surprise had no place in modern trials since "acceptance of the principle that justice was better served when the element of surprise was eliminated from the trial and the parties were prepared to address issues on the basis of complete information of the case to be met."

One word of caution, the disclosure request was never made to the Crown so they can't be blamed for not providing it. The best thing to do is step back, request disclosure from the Crown NOW, then at trial force the Crown to request an adjournment to provide disclosure.

Had (s)he requested disclosure correctly in the first place, then yes, there would be a strong argument, but given the short turn around from offence date to trial, an adjournment rather than a stay would have resulted.

He did hand-deliver it to the crown's office. The clerk there told him to take it to the police station, which he then did.

Thanks for the info TC, I'll pass it on and followup with the results.

UPDATE:

Turns out court date was TODAY! Just got a call from happy co-worker. He went in and asked a group of officers if officer so-'n-so was in. They said he wasn't there yet. So he went and talked to the crown and told him he was going to motion for dismissal based on lack of disclosure. Crown said, "don't bother. I'm dropping the charge", and sent him on his way!

Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh happy day.

Just found this thread after posting a very similar one in the wrong forum (thanks to the mod for moving it)...

Ticketcombat -- you mentioned that if Bookm's request was made to the Crown, there would be a strong argument for dismissal rather than adjournment. My situation is exactly that -- so can I make a "dismissal" request at trial? How (any paperwork/timelimits involved)? And at what point in the trial (eg. after arraignment, like your site mentions for a stay)? My trial is a week and a half away!