The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously governed on Friday that police must send an expunged misconduct report to prosecutors if it is relevant to a criminal case. Civil rights group welcomed The ruling called it a “huge win for defendants’ rights and police accountability.”
Judge Sheila Martin, who wrote the unanimous ruling, held that an expungement provision in an internal police regulatory mechanism should not outweigh the defendant’s constitutional right to disclosure in a criminal case. She noted that police misconduct can be relevant in two ways: either to the criminal investigation or to an officer involved in the case, thereby jeopardizing the officer’s credibility and reliability at trial. Therefore, the police must submit a record of police misconduct to the public prosecutor’s office for the relevance assessment, even if it has been deleted.
Martin rejected police claims that officers’ privacy would automatically preclude such a disclosure. She argued that privacy concerns played a role in the disclosure decision. Law enforcement must balance the rights of the officer and the defendant. If necessary, such concerns could be alleviated by redactions.
The court concluded that the role of the police is to triage and transmit evidence to the prosecution in criminal proceedings. Because the public prosecutor’s office bears the duty of disclosure – a decision subject to judicial review – the final decision on what to disclose must rest with the public prosecutor and not the police.
The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association welcomed The decision argued that the police’s broad powers require a higher level of accountability. Vibert Jack, its litigation director, added: “Rather than sweeping past misconduct under the rug, police forces must take meaningful action to reform their accountability measures.”
The court has existed since 1991 confirmed that the right to a fair process And basic procedural justice includes a right to full disclosure. This constitutional right requires law enforcement to do so inquire if other government agencies have information relevant to the process. The prosecution must reveal provide all relevant information to a defendant, even if the case does not rely on it.
The case concerns Alberta’s now-revoked permit Police service regulations. Section 22 provided for the removal and destruction of a police disciplinary record after five years. Police argued that removing the recording meant it could no longer be disclosed. Two sub-dishes ordered disclosure; The police appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Police Conduct and Supervision Regulations replaces the repealed regulation; it contains an equivalent deletion provision. The replacement is part of the province’s larger scope overhaul law enforcement. A key change is the creation of the Alberta Sheriffs Police Service (ASPS), a law enforcement agency that works alongside the federal Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Prime Minister Danielle Smith said It does not intend to replace the RCMP, but to fill the enforcement gap through civilian oversight. On the other hand, the National Police Federation contradicted to the ASPS establishment, citing that 76 per cent of Albertans were satisfied with the RCMP and 81 per cent believed there were more important priorities that needed to be addressed. It has also increased Issue about transparency and economic sustainability.
