警察腐败指控对刑事案件的影响
当执法人员被指控犯罪时，他们过去经手处理的案件会受到严格审查。这种对警察腐败的调查，对正在进行的起诉程序意味着什么？Lesley Pasquino，安大略省皇家检察官协会主席，以及Adam Weisberg，刑事律师协会主席，就此展开讨论。
当一名警官卷入多起案件并面临腐败指控时，刑事辩护律师的首要步骤是什么？Weisberg律师表示，虽然在多伦多和安大略省，这种情况并不常见，但一旦得知警官面临此类指控，辩护律师的首要行动是开始寻求披露（disclosure）。控方（Crown）同样负有义务，一旦知晓案件中的证人存在未决指控或与腐败相关的定罪，他们必须进行披露。
Original English
When cops are charged with crimes, the cases they've worked come under scrutiny. So what do police corruption probes mean for ongoing prosecutions? Lesley Pasquino is president of the Ontario Crown Attorneys Association. Adam Weisberg is president of the Criminal Lawyers Association, and they join us in studio. Great to have you both here. Thank you so much. >> Thanks for having us. Morning, Adam. >> When there are allegations of corruption against an officer that's involved in various cases, what are the next steps for a criminal defence lawyer? >> So thankfully, in Toronto or Ontario, it doesn't come up that much in my career, thankfully. Obviously, there's some recent high profile allegations that are out there right now. The first thing we would do if we were aware that an officer was facing such charges on one of our cases is start seeking disclosure. That would be the first step. And the Crown also has an obligation as well. If they are aware that a witness on their case has outstanding charges or has convictions related to corruption, and I'll let Leslie explain what their obligation is.披露机制与MacNeil报告
Pasquino女士解释了MacNeil报告的作用。它是一份详细记录警察不当行为指控及其细节的报告。当控方检察官在审理案件时，如果发现负责调查的警官或将作为证人的警官面临不当行为指控，相关信息会通过MacNeil报告提供给控方。控方检察官负有披露这些信息的义务。此外，即使是控方检察官主动了解到不当行为的指控，他们也有责任进行合理的调查，并且不能等待刑事指控或内部调查结果出炉。这些不当行为指控可能正在被调查，而在此期间，控方仍需向辩方提供披露信息，并需要持续重新评估案件。
Weisberg律师补充说，尽管他们信任控方检察官的工作，但当有腐败指控成为新闻时，辩护律师会非常谨慎地检查披露信息，确保相关警官未在自己的案件中任职。如果发现有警官涉案，辩护律师办公室将主动寻求披露，甚至可能要求比MacNeil报告更多的信息。
Original English
>> Help me understand, there's something called the MacNeil report. >> A MacNeil report is a report that will set out allegations of police misconduct and details of police misconduct. So what happens is, if I am prosecuting a case and one of my investigating officers or an officer who's going to be a witness or a key part of the case has allegations of misconduct against them, that information will be given to me, provided to me in a MacNeil report. I have a duty to disclose. Also, if I find out about allegations of misconduct as the Crown attorney, I have a duty to make reasonable inquiries, and I don't have the luxury of waiting until criminal charges or an internal investigation have been resolved. Those misconduct allegations can be being investigated. And while that's going on, I still have to provide disclosure to Adam as that's happening. And that will cause me to have to reassess my case continually throughout. >> All right. >> Not as much as we we trust the crown attorneys to do their job, whether they're federal or provincial prosecutors, and disclose, MacNeil reports. When something hits the news where, you know, there's corruption charges, the officers are named, defence lawyers are going to be very careful to check through the disclosure, make sure those officers aren't involved in their cases. And if they are, my office anyway, would be very proactive in seeking disclosure and probably seeking more disclosure than just the MacNeil report.控方决策与可信度评估
Pasquino女士进一步阐述了控方检察官的职责。控方是独立的司法官员，其角色具有准司法性质。这意味着控方在案件进入审判甚至陪审团阶段之前，就需要独立做出是否继续起诉的决定。如果每一项指控都必须走完审判程序，司法系统将因不堪重负而崩溃。警察负责调查并收集证据，然后提交给控方。控方独立于警方，评估是否存在合理的定罪可能性（reasonable prospect of conviction），并且起诉是否符合公共利益。当腐败指控影响到关键调查警官或证人时，这无疑会影响控方的评估。
Weisberg律师指出，许多面临腐败指控的警官职业生涯已相当漫长。他询问，是否所有受涉事警官影响的案件都会受到牵连？他认为，这取决于控方检察官的评估。辩护律师会积极争取披露更多信息，而控方检察官必须判断该警官的可信度是否对案件的实质性或相关性构成问题。例如，如果一名警官仅是案件的旁观者或负责警戒现场，而案件的关键证人是平民（如控方或受害者），那么该警官的腐败指控可能不会对案件产生实质影响。然而，如果该警官在案件中扮演关键角色，其可信度直接关系到案件的核心证据，那么控方就必须评估这是否会影响定罪的可能性。
Original English
>> Leslie, help us understand I'm going to take a step back away from sort of these these allegations of corruption cases. But how do you, as a Crown attorney, decide whether or not to prosecute and accused? >> First of all, you have to understand the role of a crown. A role of a crown is independent. We're independent ministers of justice, and our role is quasi judicial. And the reason our role is quasi judicial is because we make decisions whether or not to proceed with a case long before it ever gets to trial, long before it ever goes to a jury. If every charge that was laid ended up in a trial, the system would collapse. It doesn't have the capacity. So when the police it's like a law and order episode. The police investigate, they gather the evidence, and then they provide it to the crown and independently of the police. And that's a separation that's really important for the judicial system, independently of the police. The Crown will then review to see whether there's a reasonable prospect of conviction, and it's in the public interest. So when there are corruption charges that impact maybe key investigative officers or key witnesses, that will obviously impact our assessment. >> Adam, some of these allegations that we have been hearing, these officers have had pretty long careers. If we're talking about some current ones or we're talking in the past. So I'm curious, are all the cases that are touched by an officer in a corruption allegations affected? >> That's going to be a Crown attorneys assessment? Obviously, we would be pushing for disclosure and pushing to get more facts and more information. What the Crown attorney is going to have to do is assess whether or not their credibility is in issue on something that's material or relevant to the case. So, for example, I would suspect that most cases wouldn't be impacted where there's a civilian witness that is, say, for example, the complainant or the key alleged victim in a case where an officer, maybe, you know, has a tangential relationship in the case or guards a scene. So it's really going to depend on the officer's role that's facing the corruption allegations. As to how the Crown assesses whether or not that affects their reasonable prospect of conviction. And what we mean by that is the Crown attorney has to assess will this case potentially be successful if I go to trial? And if you have an allegation of an officer being corrupt and they fulfil a key role where their credibility is an issue on a key piece of the case, the Crown needs to prove that's likely going to end the case in a lot of circumstances.历史案例与案件重审的挑战
Pasquino女士以一个2004年发生在多伦多警局毒品组的案例为例。当时，五名警官因涉嫌非法搜查毒贩住所、伪造记录等指控被起诉，其中五人因企图妨碍司法公正被定罪，三人还被判犯有伪证罪。她指出，这类案件是否会影响警官先前参与的刑事案件，取决于该警官在先前案件中的具体角色。如果警官仅是执行例行任务，如在犯罪现场外围警戒，未接触证据或证人，则可能影响不大。但如果警官是主要调查者，负责搜查令执行、证据回收，并且其证词对案件至关重要，那么其不当行为、不诚实或腐败的指控将严重影响其可信度。在这种情况下，控方必须仔细审查，即使有公众对打击犯罪的强烈诉求，也必须权衡是否还能保证公平审判以及司法系统的声誉。
Weisberg律师进一步解释了“方便的证据”这一概念。例如，为了证明某人持有某物，需要有证据将嫌疑人与该物品联系起来。如果一把枪被发现放在嫌疑人护照旁边，这可能将嫌疑人与枪支联系起来。然而，如果负责搜查的警官面临腐败指控，存在其窃取、错放或篡改证据的嫌疑，那么该护照是否真的与枪支一同被发现就可能受到质疑。这种情况下，控方检察官将面临艰难的决定。
至于证人证词，Weisberg律师认为情况更为复杂。如果案件依赖于一位独立的平民证人，而涉事警官与该证人接触甚少，那么控方很可能会继续推进案件。
关于已定罪的案件是否可能被重新审理，Pasquino女士表示这有可能发生，因为存在上诉期。Weisberg律师补充说，这比处理正在审理中的案件要困难得多。一旦定罪，通常有30天的时间提起上诉。如果事后发现关键证人警官存在可信度问题，可以尝试上诉，但这非常困难。原因包括：案件的终结性原则；需要提交新证据（即警官的腐败指控）；必须证明即使尽职调查也无法在当时发现该证据；该证据可能影响案件结果，甚至改变判决；以及证明可能存在司法不公（miscarriage of justice）。辩护律师必须将腐败指控与案件建立有意义的联系，这通常非常困难。
Original English
>> Leslie, I want to look at a case that's more than 20 years old from 22,004. At the time, five officers at the Toronto Police Service Drug Squad were charged with various allegations, including illegally searching homes of alleged drug dealers and falsifying records to cover it up, among others. Five of the officers were convicted of attempting to obstruct justice. Three of those were also convicted of perjury. You you're well acquainted with this. This case, of course. Would a case like that affect the criminal cases that these officers may have previously been involved with? >> It may. So, as Adam said, it really depends on the role the officer had in that other case. So if they were guarding the perimeter at 3:00 in the morning of a scene of a crime, never touched any evidence, never spoke to any witnesses, really didn't get involved in the investigation. Probably not. But if they were the lead investigator who recovered key evidence, for example, on a gun possession case, if they're the investigator who executed a search warrant, found a gun, and their testimony is crucial at the trial. They're the person who's going to testify. They found a gun in its place beside. >> The passport of the accused. >> Beside the passport of the accused. That's right. That's always helpful. Then that may the the misconduct, dishonesty, corruption allegations will obviously have an impact on their credibility. And so as the Crown, I would have to take a very close look at that. Even though there's huge public interest in keeping guns off the street and public safety, you also have to balance that against whether it would still be a fair trial and the reputation of the justice system. These decisions are decisions Crown's make every single day, hundreds of times. They have hundreds of cases, and they're really difficult decisions to make. Talking about the past for what do you mean by that? Well, sometimes to establish possession of a certain item, you'd want something linking the the suspect or the accused. So, for example, if a passport was conveniently located beside a firearm, that would link the accused potentially to that firearm. And if you have an officer who is facing corruption allegations, where there's suspicion that he's stolen evidence, misplaced evidence, rearranged evidence, that might be in question as to whether or not that passport was actually by the gun and not that would be a difficult decision, I think, for the Crown attorney, if they had an officer claiming to found a gun with a conveniently located piece of evidence that ties to the accused, and that officer is facing corruption allegations. So it's kind of a little bit of a inside baseball joke that, you know, convenient pieces of evidence sometimes show up. >> Evidence is one thing. And what about witness testimony? Well, I think that's a little more complicated. If you have an independent civilian witness that the Crown's case hinges on, and the officer that's facing the corruption allegations doesn't have much contact with them, then that's going to be a case where I would suspect the Crown's likely to proceed. >> Is there an opportunity for cases that are, you know, convictions have already happened? Could those be opened up versus is it easier for something that's in pre-trial or, you know, only a few years that a conviction has been placed? >> It could happen. There's a there's a period within which appeals can be brought. But I mean, probably Adam's better able to address that than I am. When the defence counsel would consider trying to launch an appeal to get a case reopened. >> So that would be a lot more difficult than a case that's already in the system or that's working through once once a person has been found guilty, you generally have 30 days to launch an appeal. If you found out that an officer that was key to your case that had credibility issues later came up, you could potentially try to advance an appeal, but it would be very difficult. And the reason why it would be difficult is a couple of things. There is an interest in finality in cases. So in order to reopen the case, to get the extension, then you'd have to file something called fresh evidence. And I don't want to overcomplicate things for your audience, but you'd have this fresh evidence of this corruption for the officer. So you'd have to show that even if you're a duly diligent, you couldn't have discovered it at the time, that it will impact the case, that it potentially could change the verdict. And then you're going to have to show that there was potentially, in most cases, a miscarriage of justice. So you're going to have to tie that corruption or those allegations in some meaningful way to your case. And I would suspect it would be very difficult. There's a couple of cases I've read in British Columbia where this type of issue is raised, and the defence lawyers or the appellant wasn't successful, because it's really difficult. It's much better if you catch it while the case is is going much more complicated and difficult if there's already been a conviction. Not impossible, but difficult.司法系统资源与案件积压
Pasquino女士提到，安大略省有1400名控方检察官，平均每11000人配备一名，这在加拿大排名倒数第三，她强调“远远不够”。她表示，他们“极度需要资源”，并将其工作描述为一种“召唤”。她指出，控方检察官经过高技能、高强度的培训，如果追求高薪，他们会选择去湾街（Bay Street）的律所。
对于复杂的腐败案件，通常需要一个团队而非单独一名控方检察官来处理。Pasquino女士强调，控方的资源必须与警方调查投入的资源相匹配。如果警方进行了大规模、复杂、耗时长的调查，检方也必须投入相应资源。这同样符合被告的利益，因为这会产生巨量的披露信息，包括海量的数字证据（如手机、电脑、监控录像、窃听记录等），控方需要从中筛选出相关信息，并保护线人特权。这是一个巨大的工程。尽管有团队，但这些团队往往是从现有办公室抽调人员组成，缺乏专门的、可随时调用的专家。因此，迫切需要增加控方资源、技术设备、技术顾问和技术支持。Pasquino女士以自身为例，表示在担任协会主席后回到审判办公室，甚至没有行政助理协助，所有工作都需亲力亲为。
Weisberg律师则从法院积压的角度提问，这些积压是否会影响案件的推进速度。他指出，数字时代使案件处理更加复杂，过去简单的案件现在可能涉及海量文本信息、监控录像、手机基站数据等。控方检察官面临收集证据并及时提交给辩方的挑战。同时，法院系统也存在资源紧张问题，如法官和法庭数量不足，导致案件延误。他强调，尽快审理案件符合各方利益：辩护律师希望证人和客户的记忆保持新鲜；原告（受害者）不希望长时间等待审判结果；被告也不希望在保释期间承受审判的压力。因此，控辩双方都希望案件能快速、公正地推进。
然而，他也提到，当案件拖延过久，可能触发**《权利与自由宪章》（Charter remedies）的适用，导致案件被中止**（stayed），因为无法在合理时间内完成公平审判。这种“达摩克利斯之剑”的威胁，反而促使系统改进，争取更多法庭、法官和检察官，以高效、公平的方式处理案件。