Abstract
The requirement that the state disclose to an accused person all evidence in its possession which is not clearly irrelevant is a tenet fundamental to contemporary criminal law in Canada. In essence, the right to full answer and defence implies that the individual be allowed to completely understand the case which has been brought against him or her.
This paper examines the concept of reciprocal disclosure, whereby the defence is obligated to provide evidence to the state. The confines of the ensuing discussion are limited to expert evidence and, more particularly, to psychiatric and psychological testimony. By arguing that early production of an expert's opinion advances rather than retards the interests of justice, the author attempts to debunk some of the myths which are used in Canadian legal circles to justify the suppression of opinion evidence by the defence until the last possible moment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.