---
author: TVO Today
date: '2026-05-07'
guest: ''
layout: post.njk
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSgZG5VIe6Y
speaker: TVO Today
tags:
  - police-corruption
  - criminal-prosecution
  - legal-disclosure
  - witness-credibility
  - judicial-system
title: 警察腐败如何影响刑事起诉：法律专家的深度解析
summary: 本对话深入探讨了警察腐败指控对正在进行的刑事起诉所产生的复杂影响。法律专家阐述了辩护律师如何通过要求披露信息（如MacNeil报告）来审查案件，以及控方律师在评估证人可信度、案件前景和公共利益时的独立职责。讨论还触及了历史案例、重审旧案的难度、数字证据的挑战、以及司法系统资源不足和案件积压等深层问题。
insight: ''
draft: true
series: ''
category: politics-society
area: society-thinking
project: []
people: []
companies_orgs:
  - Ontario Crown Attorneys Association
  - Criminal Lawyers Association
  - Toronto Police Service Drug Squad
products_models: []
media_books: []
status: evergreen
---
### 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。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>
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.
</details>

### 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。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>
>> 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.
</details>

### 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。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>
>> 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.
</details>

### 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。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>
>> 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.
</details>

### 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。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>
>> There's a lot of hours that
are going into this and I have
to ask.
Give us a sense of how many
Crown attorneys there are in
this province.
>> We have 1400 Crown attorneys
with our population.
We have approximately one Crown
attorney for every 11,000
people.
That ranks us third lowest in
Canada.
It's not nearly enough.
If I can take the opportunity to
say that we are desperate for
resources and it's a calling.
If people go through law school,
they go through Articling, where
highly skilled, highly trained
and dedicated.
If we were in it for the big
bucks, we'd be on Bay Street.
>> I was in --
I imagine, for complicated cases
like these corruption cases,
it's not a 1 to 1
one Crown attorney to the case.
There are number of Crown
attorneys working.
>> You need a team.
If the Crown resources
need to match the resources
that were invested
in the police investigation.
So if you've got a big,
complicated, lengthy
police investigation,
those resources have to be
matched
by the prosecution.
That's in the interest
of the accused as well,
because it generates
a huge amount of disclosure.
Huge.
And by disclosure,
I mean all the evidence.
You know, if you think about
cell phones
and computers and doorbell
cams and dashcams and wiretaps,
it's
terabytes of material
that a crown somewhere
is having to sift
through to see what's relevant,
what isn't.
Protect confidential informer
privilege.
It's a huge undertaking.
And we have teams.
But often those teams are
assembled
out of the existing Tron
offices.
There aren't
people that are just sitting out
there
with the expertise to do this
that can be brought in.
So, we desperately need Crown
resources.
We need technical equipment,
technical advisors, tech
support.
When I go back to my own trial
office
after I finished
being president of the OCA,
I don't have an admin assistant
or anyone to assist me.
I do everything myself,
including my own photocopying
and everything that needs to
change.
>> Alright, Adam, do you think
the backlogs in the court system
would affect how cases are moved
through the system?
We know with the case from 2004,
these are cases that are dragged
on for quite a while.
We're talking years here.
>> Well, the backlogs in the
court system always play a
factor.
And like Lesley's mentioning
about the resources that are
required for the crown attorney,
it's also very resource
intensive for defence lawyers.
The digital age has made our
jobs much more complicated in
the sense that what was a simple
case 15 years ago is no longer a
simple case because there's text
messages, there's CCTV, there's
cell phone towers, there's
there's things that just didn't
exist.
So the crown attorney does face
a challenge of gathering all
that evidence and getting it to
us in a timely fashion, to then
proceed with the case combined
with sometimes there's resource
strains, not enough courtrooms,
not enough judges, and things
can lag in the system, and it's
in everybody's interest.
And I say everybody's interest
to have a trial as soon as
possible.
And I say that because you want,
as a defence lawyer, witnesses
memories to be as fresh as
possible.
You want your client's memory to
be as fresh as possible to
assist you in your investigation
and moving things forward.
And as far as the complainants
go, the alleged victims of the
crimes they have no interest in
sitting around waiting to two
and a half years for their day
in court to see what happens
with the situation they
occurred.
The same thing goes for an
accused person.
They don't want to wait on bail
with the stress of a trial
hanging over them.
So everybody, I'd say Crown and
defence want to move things
through the system in a in a
fast pace.
That's still fair and and moves
things forward for justice.
Now, we do have issues where
there is too much time that's
passed, and there are charter
remedies that sometimes come
into play.
And as you know, that sometimes
it's in the media that cases get
stayed because they couldn't get
prosecuted in a way that was
fair or within a reasonable
amount of time.
And that's in nobody's interest.
But it's also that kind of sword
of Damocles hanging over is what
spurs the system forward and
causes the system to make sure
that we get more courtrooms,
more judges, more prosecutors,
and are able to prosecute things
in an efficient way where it's
fair for both the alleged
victims and the accused persons.
>> Adam.
Leslie, I know you guys don't
have a lot of time, so I
appreciate you both coming into
our studios to have this
conversation.
I want to I want to say thank
you.
This was very informative.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
</details>