R. v. Lalo

R. v. Lalo

The court found the Crown interviews at issue were conducted for trial preparation and therefore attract Crown work product privilege and need not be disclosed, except where the interviews were used for investigative fact-finding or where new facts or inconsistencies (which could impair the accused's ability to make full answer and defence) were revealed; accordingly the Stinchcombe application was denied in respect of the bulk of materials but the Crown was ordered to review and provide written explanations of the 'minor inconsistencies' for five named complainants (R.A., J.A., C.F., K.S., D.S.).

Citation
2002 NSSC 169
Parties
Crown/respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/applicant Respondent: Cesar Lalo
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault / Pre Trial Disclosure Hearing (stinchcombe Application)
Outcome
Application partially allowed and partially dismissed: Crown work product privilege upheld for most Crown interview materials; Crown ordered to review notes concerning five named withdrawn complainants and provide written explanations of the minor inconsistencies identified.
Legal Topics
Crown Disclosure, Work Product Privilege, Stinchcombe Application, Witness Interviews, Withdrawal of Charges, Publication Ban (s.486 Cc), O'connor Statements
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Disclosure Privilege Procedural Law Crown Disclosure Work Product Privilege Stinchcombe Application +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/respondent

Cesar Lalo

Accused/applicant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Pre Trial Disclosure Hearing (stinchcombe Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown attorney notes, audio and video recordings of complainant interviews are protected as Crown work product privilege
  2. 2 Whether interviews were investigative in nature (requiring disclosure) or for trial preparation (protected)
  3. 3 Extent of Crown's duty to disclose inconsistencies and reasons for withdrawn charges

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Crown interviews at issue were conducted for trial preparation and therefore attract Crown work product privilege and need not be disclosed, except where the interviews were used for investigative fact-finding or where new facts or inconsistencies (which could impair the accused's ability to make full answer and defence) were revealed; accordingly the Stinchcombe application was denied in respect of the bulk of materials but the Crown was ordered to review and provide written explanations of the 'minor inconsistencies' for five named complainants (R.A., J.A., C.F., K.S., D.S.).

Court Disposition

Application partially allowed and partially dismissed: Crown work product privilege upheld for most Crown interview materials; Crown ordered to review notes concerning five named withdrawn complainants and provide written explanations of the minor inconsistencies identified.

Orders

  • Crown to review its notes regarding R.A., J.A., C.F., K.S. and D.S. and provide the defence with a written explanation of the 'minor inconsistencies' revealed in those interviews.
  • Crown work product privilege upheld for the balance of Crown attorney notes, audio and video tapes relating to complainant interviews unless Crown elects to waive privilege and disclose portions.