Not exact matches
While the
disclosure obligations imposed on the Crown make the preliminary inquiry less important as a forum for
disclosure of the Crown's case
against the accused, the constitutional principle that evidence should be made available to the
defence if there is a possibility that non-
disclosure will impair the accused's right to make full answer and
defence, by extension, would seem to direct the justice presiding at the preliminary inquiry to ensure that the
defence is given the widest latitude in obtaining
disclosure during the course of the preliminary inquiry.
Holman J came to that conclusion notwithstanding that, in Eisai, counsel for NICE had conceded (Eisai, [59]-RRB- that, in any action
against it for breach of confidence in respect of such a
disclosure, a public interest
defence would be available to it if fairness required that the information be disclosed.
Before trial, the criminal law seeks to protect an accused from being conscripted
against him - or herself by the confession rule, the right to remain silent in the face of state interrogation into suspected criminal conduct, and the absence of a duty of
disclosure on the
defence: R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151.
(correct test for Barrister appeals; whether outside the ex improviso rule, prosecutor may call evidence after prosecution and
defence case closed; use of debarring orders
against prosecutor; whether tribunal may «enter the arena» and strongly request the attendance of a prosecution witness; whether BSB has power to summons witnesses; whether prosecutor may communicate with disciplinary judge behind the back of the
defence; whether such communication redolent of actual bias of judge where judge wishes prosecutor good luck on appeal; whether apparent bias doctrine can be engaged by post-trial conduct of judge; legal effect of serving BSB prosecutions department officer being 1 of 4 appointing members of the COIC «Tribunals Appointments Body» (TAB); whether TAB ultra vires the Bar's Constitutions; whether open - ended power of removal of member of COIC pool without cause, unlawful given position of BSB Chair and senior staff on COIC; whether ECHR Article 6 guarantees
against pressure on disciplinary judges to conform with a prosecutorial mentality; whether disciplinary judges Art. 6 «independent» within Findlay v United Kingdom given key role of BSB prosecutions department in appointing disciplinary judges; serious non-
disclosure by BSB of notes of secret meeting between BSB and disciplinary judge until day before appeal and despite requests and application for
disclosure by
defence)