Previous Document

statements of the witnesses (including expert witnesses) whom the      [PP84]
prosecution intends to call at the trial' (cl 13(3)).

The obligation of disclosure is recommended to arise upon an order of a judge
of the court to which the defendant has been committed for trial, but should
not be made unless the parties are unable to reach agreement without
supervision. This order

   should be available in all cases (whether or not fraud is involved)
   where the case appears likely to be complex , and the order might
   assist in:

   o    identifying the issues for trial;
   o    making the issues and evidence more comprehensible to the jury;
   o    expediting the proceedings before the jury; or
   o    facilitating the court's management of the trial.
        (Aronson (1992) Recommendations 10(b)(i) and (ii))
   
If, contrary to his recommendation, the 'Roskill' abolition of committals is
adopted, Aronson makes alternative recommendations, but they are unchanged in
respect of the disclosure of exhibits (Aronson (1992) Recommendation 11(g)).


Issues concerning computerised documents and statements


These disclosure recommendations give rise to some difficult issues concerning
documentary exhibits, or statements, in computerised form.

(i)     If the prosecution has made image copies of documentary exhibits (or
        proposes to), should it be required to provide to the defence a copy of
        the documents in such computer-readable form ?
   
The creation of an image database in a complex criminal trial is expensive,
and if the prosecution has no intention of imaging documents for its own
purposes, it is difficult to see it being required to do so. If only the
defence wishes to use an image database, it will have to bear the cost of
creating it. However, if the prosecution has already created an image
database, or intends to do so, it is an unnecessary waste of resources to
require the defence to go through the same expensive exercise, one which may
well be beyond its means. It may also lead to injustice, or perceptions of
unfairness by the jury, if the prosecution has at its disposal the ability to
recall instantly images of any exhibits, but the defence does not.
Recommendations that the prosecution be required to provide paper copies of
exhibits do not suggest that the defence should bear the costs of this. In our
view, the prosecution should not be able impose any charge for the provision
of a copy of an image database that it creates.

(ii)    In such cases, should the prosecution be able to insist on providing
        a copy of the documents only in computer-readable form and not as paper
        copies?
   
Where a complex criminal trial involves hundreds of thousands of documents,
the obligation to provide paper copies of all exhibits that the prosecution
intends to produce may be unnecessarily onerous, at least where the defendant
is well able to cope with documents being provided in computer-readable form.
In some cases, it may be unrealistic to expect the defence to have or obtain
adequate hardware, or software, to make effective use of an image database.
Rothwells Task Force staff noted that it cost $36,000 to provide photocopies
of part of the exhibits in that matter to the defence. Image copies of the
same documents could have been provided on magnetic or optical media
for a few hundred dollars. There may therefore be

                                                            Next Document