I think your comments, like the comments of my colleague here, are fine in theory. He talked about how police are trained from the beginning to be objective and straightforward and right down the middle, and about how they're not going to be affected subjectively by these kinds of things. You talked about the team approach and the objective of justice being done and so on. Theoretically, that's great. Applied to the vast majority of police conduct, that is probably correct.
But there is a danger, because police have a unique role in society. They have the authority to use force, and they have great authority to affect criminal cases and the outcome in criminal cases, quite apart from the actual evidence that's presented.
The proof is in the pudding. If you read the Marshall inquiry report; if you read the recent report of the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer on three murder cases in Newfoundland; if you read the recent reports on Driskell in Manitoba and Morin in Ontario, there's chapter and verse of police misbehaving, of withholding evidence from the defence, of acting unfairly, and of giving testimony that was misleading. Although the vast majority of police live up to the principles that you enunciate, that is why there's a danger. It's because of their unique position that some won't, and the consequences can be wrongful convictions. That's why, in many cases, the judge is the one who stands between society and the danger of the police abusing their position.