Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWright, Philip
dc.contributor.otherQueen's University (Kingston, Ont.). Theses (Queen's University (Kingston, Ont.))en
dc.date2012-04-25 15:01:59.292en
dc.date.accessioned2012-04-26T22:03:11Z
dc.date.issued2012-04-26
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1974/7120
dc.descriptionThesis (Ph.D, Law) -- Queen's University, 2012-04-25 15:01:59.292en
dc.description.abstractMore than ever before, two imperatives, ‘the right to know’ and ‘the need to keep secret’, find themselves in a contest for a position of primacy in the contemporary legal system. The need to keep secret is antipathetic to the right to know. The Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has entrenched a person’s right to disclosure of both exculpatory and inculpatory material in possession of the prosecution. Moreover, the common law has placed the additional responsibility on the prosecution to inquire of third parties as to the existence and production of material relevant to the defence. Despite the entrenchment of the right to disclosure the demands by the state have steadily grown for more evidence to be withheld from defendants, parties to proceedings and the public in general. The applications for in camera or ex parte hearings are common place and frequently acceded to. This thesis seeks to examine the clash of the two imperatives from the Canadian perspective. By using a comparative analysis of other jurisdictions throughout the thesis, it examines the various legislative instruments and common law employed in the Canadian Courts in respect of ‘ordinary’ criminal trials as well as trials of suspected terrorists, specifically, in respect of disclosure and the ability to withhold material from other parties and refrain from the obligation to disclose. The thesis includes a full analysis of disclosure options, public interest immunity, informer privilege, special advocates and other regimes, and claims of privilege in the interests of national security. The thesis provides a number of detailed recommendations as to how Canada can better balance rights of accused against the public interest and the needs of those who enforce the law.. The recommendations call for legal reforms, some new institutions for better accountability and new internal standards for those engaged in the investigation of crimes and national security matters.en_US
dc.languageenen
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesCanadian thesesen
dc.rightsThis publication is made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws without written authority from the copyright owner.en
dc.subjectPIIen_US
dc.subjectInformantsen_US
dc.subjectUndertakingsen_US
dc.subjectPrivilegeen_US
dc.subjectDisclosureen_US
dc.subjectNational Securityen_US
dc.subjectPublic Interest Immunityen_US
dc.titleA CLASH OF TWO IMPERATIVES:THE RIGHT TO KNOW VERSUS THE NEED TO KEEP SECRET IN THE CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL LAW AND NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERSen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.restricted-thesisThird party interest. Examples given in thesis, which are my personal examples,remain part of an open investigation.en
dc.description.degreePh.Den
dc.contributor.supervisorStuart, Donen
dc.contributor.departmentLawen
dc.embargo.terms1825en
dc.embargo.liftdate2017-04-25


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record