Years back, I went to trial and questioned the officer about the events and the statements he had made to the court.

I won the case because the officer's notes were NOT admissible BECAUSE he neglected to not down the ENTIRE conversation we had for the most part.

The JP noted the officer agreed to some conversation we had THAT WERE NOT WRITTEN IN HIS NOTES.

The JP said that the notes are not admissible because the ENTIRE conversation was not archived, that the officer CANNOT pick and choose what he wants to note down.

Interesting I thought .... Valid ??? Made the officer's notes inadmissible as a consequence.

Its most likely because you had brought up the conversation that you had with him. He can't bring up a conversation that he had with you and what was said without going into a voir

dire, (a trial within a trial to determine the admissibility of evidence/statements).

All the officer had to say that he didn't recollect everything as he didn't write it down. It is not practical to write EVERYTHING down into your notebook and mention that to JP. Further to that, the note book notes are there to assist with refreshing their memory. The crown should have been standing up and backing them up on that.

Even without referring notes, depending on the type of offence laid, its quite easily to obtain a conviction (not for all ofcourse).

As for if it was valid, JP's are human and make their determinations case by case.

I've seen partial statements go in on a voir dire before. I think what they usually try to prevent is not incomplete conversations but conversations that aren't written down verbatim. For example, a couple verbatim sentences are more likely to go in than the officer "summarizing" what the defendant said without having the exact words noted down.