Richard B. Miller

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault following a group beating.

The Crown inadvertently failed to disclose four witness statements, though summaries were included in police occurrence reports provided to defence counsel during the trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Crown breached its duty to disclose relevant material, the appellant's right to make full answer and defence was not impaired.

The undisclosed statements would not have affected the reliability of the conviction, and defence counsel's lack of due diligence in pursuing the full statements after receiving the summaries was a significant factor in concluding that the overall fairness of the trial process was not compromised.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault.

He appealed on the basis that the Crown failed to disclose a statement made by a witness, although a summary of the statement was included in police reports provided to defence counsel.

The Supreme Court of Canada applied the principles from the companion case of R. v. Dixon.

The Court found that the undisclosed statement would not have affected the reliability of the conviction and that defence counsel failed to exercise due diligence by not requesting the full statement despite knowing of its existence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault.

He appealed on the basis that the Crown failed to disclose statements made by four individuals, although summaries were included in police reports provided to defence counsel.

Applying the principles from a companion case, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

The Court found that the undisclosed statements had very low materiality and that defence counsel failed to exercise due diligence by not requesting the full statements despite knowing of their existence.

Consequently, the failure to produce the statements did not affect the fairness of the trial process.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault against two different victims.

The Crown inadvertently failed to disclose a witness statement to the defence.

Applying the principles from R. v. Dixon, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the undisclosed statement did not affect the reliability of the conviction for the first assault.

However, for the second assault, the statement contained exculpatory evidence that could have raised a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed in part, and a new trial was ordered for the second assault.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault.

The Crown failed to disclose a statement made by an eyewitness, though a summary was included in police reports provided to the defence.

The Court of Appeal found that defence counsel had exercised due diligence in pursuing disclosure.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the undisclosed statement could have affected the defence's strategy, such as the decision not to call evidence.

The Court concluded that the non-disclosure affected the fairness of the trial process and impaired the appellant's right to make full answer and defence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.