R. v. D.M.D.

R. v. D.M.D.

The court held the Crown was not obliged to disclose the vetted SDRs relating to Sources A and C because those vetted SDRs were not placed before the authorizing justice and the Crown adduced credible evidence that the vetted SDR content was consistent with the affidavit and that withholding them does not give rise to a reasonable possibility of impairing the accused's right to make full answer and defence in the Garofoli/Production Order context; informer privilege and safety/redaction concerns supported nondisclosure and the Crown met its burden to justify refusal.

Citation
2016 NSSC 343
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: D.M.D.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Garofoli/production Order Challenge (manslaughter) / Pre Trial Disclosure Hearing (application to Compel Disclosure of Sdrs/shns)
Outcome
Defendant's application for disclosure of vetted SDRs denied
Legal Topics
Stinchcombe Disclosure, Garofoli Application, Source Handler Notes, Source Debriefing Reports, Production Order, Third Party Production, Sub Facial Challenge
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Disclosure Informer Privilege Search and Seizure Procedural Law Stinchcombe Disclosure Garofoli Application Source Handler Notes +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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

D.M.D.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Garofoli/production Order Challenge (manslaughter) / Pre Trial Disclosure Hearing (application to Compel Disclosure of Sdrs/shns)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether source handler notes (SHNs) and source debriefing reports (SDRs) relied upon in an affidavit seeking a Production Order are presumptively part of Crown (first‑party) disclosure
  2. 2 Appropriate relevance threshold for disclosure in a Garofoli context vs Stinchcombe/McNeil and O'Connor frameworks
  3. 3 Scope and protection of informer privilege and the risk of identifying sources (mosaic effect)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the Crown was not obliged to disclose the vetted SDRs relating to Sources A and C because those vetted SDRs were not placed before the authorizing justice and the Crown adduced credible evidence that the vetted SDR content was consistent with the affidavit and that withholding them does not give rise to a reasonable possibility of impairing the accused's right to make full answer and defence in the Garofoli/Production Order context; informer privilege and safety/redaction concerns supported nondisclosure and the Crown met its burden to justify refusal.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for disclosure of vetted SDRs denied

Orders

  • Crown has no obligation to disclose the vetted source debriefing reports relating to Source A or Source C