R. v. Patrick Fox; Court of Appeal no CA48145 [Patrick Fox; David Layton (BCPS)]

Dear Mr. Layton:

Having reviewed the transcripts and RFJ for 244069-8-B/CA48145, and making my notes for them, I believe I have identified some additional grounds for appeal beyond those which were stated in the Notice of Appeal.

A number of the additional grounds relate to possible disclosure issues, but I'm not completely certain what the state of the law on the specific issues is. In particular, Johnson relied on certain artifacts while cross-examining me. One of those artifacts was admitted, against my objection, as an exhibit. The artifacts in question were not disclosed to me in this case, prior to me taking the witness stand. But, where it gets fuzzy, given my lack of expertise on the topic of disclosure, is that the artifacts in question either had been disclosed to me in a previous case and/or were documents I had been known to possess previously (though I may not have had access to them from the time of my arrest until the trial). So, I was aware of their existence and, possibly, of their contents. But, I did not have any notice that the Crown (Johnson) had any intention of relying on those artifacts in the current case. And, had I known that Johnson might intend to rely on those artifacts at the trial, that may have affected my decision to call myself as a witness.

I assume the Crown is not required to notify a defense WITNESS of what artifacts it intends to use in it's cross-examination of that witness, but the part I'm not certain about is whether the Crown is required to notify or disclose to THE DEFENSE the artifacts it might use in it's cross-examination of the defense's witnesses.

So, the questions I need to research are:

Do you know, without having to put excessive time into researching it, of any controlling cases which deal with these issues?

If you have any questions please let me know.

Thank you.