[16] Generally speaking in the matter of police officers' notes - the law has indeed evolved over time. No longer are the notes of an officer a simple aide-mémoire generated for the sole purpose of that officer to assist in refreshing his/her memory. While the notebook continues to be an important investigative tool, it has also evolved into a fairly significant evidentiary document of sorts. Their use as a source of reference in the course of a trial can play a significant role in a court's assessment of the evidence. The quality of such record keeping can indeed impart far reaching consequences on occasion. It cannot be said that the adequacy of an officer's notes is of little consequence. Accordingly the courts have recognized that there is an inherent duty placed on officers, to prepare complete and accurate notes. In the normal course of disclosure, officers' notes invariably find their way into the hands of defence counsel, who will of course rely on them. This has become an even more significant reality, since the advent of Stinchcombe. It can be of particular concern in instances, when events or observations of obvious relevance and importance, are omitted or not adequately documented in the notebooks of officers. In such instances, the courts have demonstrated a heightened awareness of the evidentiary dangers, such deficient notes present to a trier of fact. When serious inadequacies are demonstrated, the credibility of police officers can in fact be discounted. It goes without saying that the absence of notes on an important factor is relevant to an officer's credibility.(9) As a result the courts have on occasion, been reluctant to attribute much weight to evidence adduced viva voce by an officer, in the absence of corroborating written references in that officer's notebook. I am aware of a large body of case law(10) on the subject. Ultimately however, this is often a matter of common sense and as usual each case, must be determined on its merits.
Footnotes:
(9) See R. v. Fisher, [2005] O.J. No. 1899 (Ont C.A.).
(10) See also R. v. Farrell, [2007] No. 06-5600 Nadelle J. (O.C.J), as well as R. v. Eagle, [1996] O.J. No. 2867 (Ont. Gen. Div), citing report of A.G.'s Advisory Committee.
Thanks to Simon Borys, B.A. for pointing this out
1 comment:
A Canadian man who ran a telemarketing scam targeting elderly Americans was sentenced to nine years in federal prison, prosecutors said Thursday in Los Angeles.
John Raymond Bezeredi of Vancouver was sentenced to 109 months late Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess, who said the scheme was “cold, calculating, callous.”
Bezeredi, 49, used fraudulent companies with names such as Imperial Investments and Dominion Investments to solicit money, promising that the funds would be pooled in European prize bonds and used to buy lottery tickets.
His 4,500 victims, many who have since passed away, were told that the investments were guaranteed. Some participants eventually received small payments masquerading as dividends or winnings; most just got more solicitations for money.
Bezeredi has been ordered to pay more than $4.5 million in restitution, according to the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles.
Though he was first charged in 2004, prosecutors said he operated the scam from 2000 through 2005. A grand jury indicted him in 2006 and he was extradited to the U.S. in 2009 and has been in custody since.
The FBI and the Federal Trade Commission were among the agencies investigating his activities. In September of 2009, Bezeredi pleaded guilty to a single count of mail fraud related to a victim in Glendale.
Lucky your not a 'llllllllllawyyyyyyer in Los Angeles.
Your sob story for this guy and how society made him to do it would never make it to anywhere other than your own toilet.
9 years for ripping off old ladies while in Canada you can get far less than that for raping children,manslaughter,drinking driving causing death,just about anything really other than 1st or 2nd degree murder.
This country is finished.
People don't want to talk about the almost 600 people who have been killed since the 70's by people released from prison.
No one talks about that while their enjoying $4 vanilla lattes at the local Starbucks while engulfing themselves in the Toronto Star and the New york times.
Morton, if you think allowing child rapists out of jail after a few years is good for society I say we let him live with you, rather than possibly beside me.
Your "ideology" which is shared by the police, the crown,the judge, the government, and finally the lawyers is directly responsible for every person who has a "repeat" offense.
If a guy rapes a child, gets out 3 years and goes on to rape another child, yes Morton, you have blood on your hands.
If you don't think so and think that second rape was again "society's" fault, you really are no good for my country.
Amazing how no one is elected in this country and then people wonder why you got all 5 institutions agreeing with the verdict.
When you have all 4 major elements
Post a Comment