Court says implied undertaking applies to Stinchcombe disclosure

30 Apr

On March 15th the British Columbia Supreme Court issued a significant decision on the implied undertaking. It held:

  • that Crown disclosure in criminal cases is subject to an implied undertaking not to use the disclosure for a collateral purpose;
  • that the undertaking is not spent when disclosure materials are filed in interim applications (though is spent in respect of materials admitted as evidence at trial); and
  • that a court has inherent jurisdiction to enforce the undertaking by ordering materials to be returned to the Crown.

The Court ordered the respondents and their defence counsel to return documents to the Crown given the large volume of documents disclosed, the high profile nature of the criminal case, the number of third party interests implicated by the disclosure and the degree to which third party interests were affected and the failure of the Crown and respondents to agree on a means of adequately protecting the undertaking.

R. v. Basi, 2011 BCSC 314 (CanLII).

One Response to “Court says implied undertaking applies to Stinchcombe disclosure”


  1. More on the Scope of the Implied Undertaking of Confidentiality | ICBC Personal Injury Claims Lawyer Erik Magraken | Victoria & Vancouver Island BC - May 2, 2011

    […] the other parties or a court order. ¬†Reasons for judgement were recently brought to my attention (thanks to Dan Michaluk) clarifying that the implied undertaking even covers documents obtained from the Crown by a party […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: